A negative view of Christianity and religion in general

I have enjoyed a much needed break, but I could not fully forget about the blog and a few current events. Many of you have asked me for my reaction to the meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis but at the time I decided not to comment about it. The time just did not feel right and I was not ready for it. However, during this break my mind naturally returned to spiritual matters and I decided that it was now or never, if I did not tackle the spiritual issues surrounding this meeting, I would never have the time or energy to do that later. So I wrote the article below. You will see that it does not really focus on this meeting at all, being as it is, just the small tip of a much bigger iceberg. I decided to tackle if not the entire iceberg, then at least a good chunk of it. I hope that at least some of you will find some merit in this. To the others I will just say not to worry. This is probably a one-off exercise and the blog will now return to its normal topics.

Hugs and cheers,

The Saker

A negative view of Christianity and religion in general

We live in a post-Christian society, not only because truly religious Christians are now a small minority, but also because culturally and spiritually our society has almost completely severed any links it once had with the original Christianity of the early Church. One of my favorite quotes of all time is “God created man in His image and man returned Him the favor“. This aphorism is so good that it was attributed to Mark Twain, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel, Frank Wedekind and Voltaire. I think that this sentence contains the best overall summary of what Christianity is in the 21st century. What I want to do today, is to express a few negative views about Christianity and about religion in general. When I say “negative”, I don’t mean to say bad things about it, but rather to say what it is *not*. Believe it or not, this is an ancient form of theological discourse called “apophatic” or “negative theology” (as opposed to “cataphatic” or “positive theology”) – a theology which rather than describing what God is, attempts to describe Him by saying what He is not. What I want to do is to apply the same methodology to the concept of religion in general and to Christianity in particular, and describe what it is not. I won’t go into lofty and abstract theological issues though, but keep is as simple and straightforward as I can.

Of course, by stating what it is not, I do imply that what Christianity was/is is something objective and not just the product of a social consensus or the opinion of a majority of people, but something which can be described, but not redefined or shaped by an opinion. In other words, there was/is a “True Christianity” which is “true” in the Slavonic understanding of the word Istina or the Hebrew Emet (see here for an explanation of “truth according to content”). However, it is not my purpose today to describe in positively, if only because that is something infinitely more complex and subtle than to describe what it is *not*.

The three “levels of religious satisfaction”

One of the greatest Orthodox theologians of the 20th century, Father Lev Lebedev, used to say that people find three kind of “satisfactions” when they go to church: a spiritual level, an psychological level and an emotional level. What he meant is that different people attend religious services for different reasons – some seek a prayerful interaction with God, others find solace from their suffering while others feel uplifted by the aesthetic beauty of the religious ceremony itself. Father Lev correctly stated that ideally one ought to experience all of these different levels at the same time because they are complementary and not mutually exclusive. Father Lev was describing what he observed as a cleric of the Orthodox Church in Russia in the 1980s and 1990s and I think that this somewhat limited his view of the matter. What I would like to attempt now is to describe other reasons which make people identify themselves as Christians/Orthodox and which have absolutely nothing to do with real religion, Christianity or Orthodoxy.

Religions as basis for ethical values

A lot of people nowadays generally approve of the so-called “Christian values” which are basically the Ten Commandments and the various ethical guidelines derived from them: not to steal, not to lie, to be kind to others, to be truthful, to live a life of modesty, to be faithful, etc. These are the folks who will say that religion plays a positive moral and educational role in society, that a non-religious society will inevitably lose a sense of right and wrong, that high ideals are needed to live a worthy life. The “need” for that kind of religion is simple: as Dostoevsky said “if there is no God all is permissible” – there is simply no logical way to define “right” and “wrong” unless you can “peg” these concepts to an absolute, transcendental source/origin of your definition. Stealing is not logically inherently bad – it is bad because “God said so”. I think of this as the “utilitarian God”: we invent ourselves a “God” who just so happens to tell us to live according to the principles we like. You think I am exaggerating? Okay, let me give you a simple example: think of all the folks who condemn Islam for allowing the death penalty for certain actions and who say “how can a religion practice capital punishment? This is so inhuman – I don’t accept that”. Notice that these people never ask themselves a simple and basic question: what if God happens to approve of the death penalty? That, they don’t care about. These people don’t reject Islam because they don’t believe that there is a God or because they don’t believe that Mohamed is His prophet – they reject Islam because they don’t like what Islam teaches, irrespective of the existence of God or whether Mohamed was, or was not, His prophet. These are the same kind of folks who reject Latin Christianity for not allowing divorce or birth control: they simply reject any religion whose teachings do not coincide with their own – and to hell (pun intended) with any objective reality. These are exactly the kind of people who “create” themselves a “God” in their own image.

Religion as a form of national self-definition

Do you know the difference between a Serb, a Croat and a “Bosniac” (i.e, a Muslim from Bosnia)? Their religion. That is not to say that there are no other differences between these south Slavs or that you cannot be a Serb, a Croat or a “Bosniac” and an atheist or, say, a Buddhist. But the root cause, the core of the historical development of differences between these three groups most definitely originates in the fact that Croats are Latins (i.e, “Roman Catholics”), the Serbs Orthodox Christians and the “Bosniacs” Muslims.

Remember that nationalism is really a 19th century West European invention and that in most of mankind’s history people defined themselves according to their place of birth (in a local sense, village, town), according to their allegiance to a leader (Emperor, feudal lord, tribal leader, etc.) and, sometimes, according to their religion. For example, the Ottoman Empire recognized the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople as the “head of the Roman nation” (rum millet) or “millet bashi” as an ethnarch whose authority extended over all the Orthodox Christians of the Ottoman Empire regardless of their ethnic or linguistic affiliations. You could be Armenian, Persian, Arab or Serb – if you were Orthodox the “millet bashi” spoke for you and was your leader.

As for the much-suffering Gagauz people (Turkic Orthodox Christians), they were originally considered as “Greeks” by the Turks only to be thought of as “Turks” by many Greeks in the 19th century.

Another example: in the Russian Empire, Karaites were not considered as Jews. In fact, the Russian Empire never discriminated between people on the basis of what we today would call their “ethnicity” but defined their “nationality” on the basis of their religion. In fact, many Russian Czars were mostly of German “ethnic” stock.

Today Empires are gone, but from Ulster, to Bosnia and even to Russia, religion has now become a form of national identity: “I am Orthodox because I am Russian” or “I am a Muslim because I am a Kazakh”. My personal reaction to this kind of “religious patriotism” is that these people really worship themselves. Think of it: any real religion should, in theory, be universalistic: if we are all the creatures of the same Creator and children of the same Father, then we are all brothers and sisters and our ethnic, cultural, linguistic or regional idiosyncrasies should be completely irrelevant to the profound spiritual bond attaching us all to each other.

This is exactly what Malcolm X saw after his pilgrimage to Mecca where traditional Islam made him abandon all his racist views about “blue eyed White devils” and all the rest of the nonsense preached by the pseudo-Islamic sect of the “Nation of Islam” and Elijah Muhammad.

This is also why German Nazis could not accept the unambiguous teaching of the New Testament about Jews: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28); For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit (Gal 5:6); Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God (1 Cor 7:19); For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor; 12:13)

The sad but also inevitable reality is that in every single case of “religious nationalism” religion is always subservient to nationalism and religion is really an ancillary means towards a much more important nationalistic goal: to proclaim some kind of “imprimatur from God” to a rabid form of nationalism and, really, self-worship. As if God was busy with, or even interested in, our petty nationalistic agenda!

One wonderful Ukrainian Orthodox priest once told me “how can I think of nationalist issues when the angels are standing next to me in the altar!” And he was absolutely right of course. Religious nationalists are also the kind of people who “create” themselves a “God” in their own image.

Religion as an ideological tool of statecraft

The two forms of “utilitarian religion” above are often combined into one particularly insidious form of pseudo-religion which sees the people in power using religion as an instrument to foster patriotism and social responsibility.

Sadly, there is a lot of that in modern Russia. Communism, at least in its Soviet form has been pretty much rejected, at least by most people, and Capitalism’s reputation is now roadkill in modern Russia. Oh sure, some Communist/Socialist ideals are still very much respected and proclaimed and most Russians want to have the opportunity to have their own business and make good money. But neither Communism nor Capitalism can play the role which Orthodoxy played in Russia before the 17th century or the Marxist ideology played during the Soviet era. This is why you very often will see Russian politicians say that “Russia needs a national idea”. This is not a spiritual vacuum, but an ideological one and, sadly, the “official” Russian Orthodox Church (aka the “Moscow Patriarchate”) has been more than willing to fill this idealogical vacuum. As a result, political officers have often been replaced by priests, official ceremonies now almost always involve a clergyman and the “Patriarch” is now playing a very important political role. In many ways this has been a very positive development because this gives the Russian people a possibility to explore their own, individual, feelings and interest towards religion in general and Orthodoxy specifically, but this also has an extremely deleterious effect on the millions of potential Orthodox Christians who are turned away from this form of Orthodoxy because its obvious subservience to the State, its agenda and policies. You might say that there is no reason for the Moscow Patriarchate not to support Putin, and I would agree but, alas, this is also what the Moscow Patriarchate did under Eltsin and even the Soviet leaders.

As a result, the situation of Orthodox Christianity in Russia is very similar to the one of Latin Christianity in South America: real piety is mostly confined to the parish level while everything above this level is permeated, at various degrees, by politics and cynicism. As I have already described in a past article, by the late 1920s Russian Orthodoxy was split into at least 4 major branches (to which one could also add several Old Rite denominations) and the only reason why the branch which is currently considered as “official” was chosen (by the state and during the Soviet era!) as the “right one” is that it was absolutely and 100% loyal to the Soviet state just as it is now loyal to the new Russian state. Yes, total subservience to a secular state power as a “criterion of Orthodoxy” is, sadly, the only reason why the Moscow Patriarchate is recognized as the “official” Orthodox Church today.

I would note that this is not just a Russian problem – it is exactly the same in many other officially “Orthodox” countries, especially in eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria). By the way, we can also observe the same phenomenon in much of the Muslim world were political regimes get to decide which branch of Islam is considered as “correct” and which one out to be confined to jails. And just as in the Orthodox Church, we see “official” Islamic institution issue exactly the kind of fatwas which the state needs in support of its policies.

Of course, none of the above has anything to do with Christ or Mohammed and, furthermore, none of the above has anything to do with religion as such. This is just a typical manifestation of religion as a tool of statecraft which Marx and Lenin had identified a long time ago. Where Marx and Lenin were, of course, wrong is when they said that all religions must be like that, they religions are inherently a tool of political control. The history of Orthodoxy and Islam are both full of examples of Bishops and Sheikhs and even entire religious hierarchies “rendering unto to Cesar what belongs to God” and “serving two masters“. But you will also find amazing examples in Orthodoxy and Islam where religious leaders openly and courageously defied the worldly powers (I think of Patriarch Hermogen of Moscow or Husayn ibn Ali).

This is nothing new and has nothing to do with religion: it is a profoundly human phenomenon which can be found throughout history and in every place where there is power. Power does indeed corrupt, and it also corrupts religious leaders.

In the West, this tendency to replace a mystical Christianity with a form of “sacralized secular domination” began almost immediately after the fall of Rome and the Western Roman Empire (in 476 AD) and the subsequent separation of Frankish-controlled Rome from the rest of the Roman Christian world (in 1054) which outlived Rome by a full millennium (until 1453 exactly). In 1075 already the Papacy adopted an amazing document which became known as the Dictatus Papae (or Papal Dictation) and which contained 27 principles which had never ever been part of the teachings of the Early Church and the Church Fathers. Here is the full list: (source)

That the Roman church was founded by God alone.

That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.

That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.

That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.

That the pope may depose the absent.

That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.

That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.

That he alone may use the imperial insignia.

That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.

That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.

That this title [Pope] is unique in the world.

That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.

That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.

That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.

That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.

That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.

That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.

That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.

That he himself may be judged by no one.

That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.

That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.

That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.

That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.

That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.

That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.

That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

Every one of these new rules is in total and categorical contradiction with the preceding 1000 year long history of the Church which used to be called “Catholic” because not only of its universal nature, but because it was based on counciliar (all-incuding) meetings were all bishops were considered equal and no authority was recognized as superior to such a council of bishops.

Just two decades after cutting itself off from the Christian world, in 1054, the Pope declared himself some kind of “super-absolute-bishop”, in 1075, something unheard of before, and then soon thereafter, in 1096, the Papacy declared its first ‘crusade’. Does anybody really think that this is a coincidence?

And lest anybody believe that this is a fluke and that Pope Gregory VII was just one insane person, I would add here that he was Gregory VII was beatified by Pope Gregory XIII in 1584 and canonized in 1728 by Pope Benedict XIII so this is very, very “official” stuff, not just the lunatic ravings of a single megalomaniac. This is why Fedor Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor has the audacity to silence Christ Himself and say to Him “Thou hast no right to add one syllable to that which was already uttered by Thee before“: because the Papacy has always considered itself above God (and His Church).

I think I can already hear the militant secularists proclaiming that all this is typical of the “God delusion“, that religion is a psychopathology which inevitably produces the kind of horrors I have described above. To them I would just say that for all their real crimes, religions still favorably compare to modern secular and putatively “enlightened” ideologies (from the Masonic French Revolution. to Marxists class warfare, to modern Capitalism) whose “atrocity scorecard” goes in the hundreds of millions. Those who believe that religions cause atrocities simply fail to understand that religions always bring people together and that people always behave in the violent way, including religious people. What makes religions different is that they at least offer a rationale to renounce violence (our common brotherhood in God) and an explanation for our tendency to use violence (our fallen nature). Yes, religions have been used by states to justify atrocities, but that use of religion is, of course, a mis-use of religion clearly condemned by Christ (render unto Cesar…). However, what has made religions so susceptible to such misuse has been their own gradual departure from what a real religion ought to be into a man-made product filled with all the inherent sins and mistakes of mankind.

The modern “ecumenism” of pseudo-religions

In the beginning of this article I did say that I would not discuss what Christianity (and religions in general) really is and that I would only describe what it is not. Still, at the very least, I have to mention a few key characteristics of early Christianity which can still be found in various parts of the modern Orthodox world and which set it apart from the rest of the so-called “Christian world”. What I would like to do next is to show what makes modern religions so profoundly similar to each other and what makes early Christianity so different from modern religions.

In my eyes, Catholic Church is the Church of the West, while the Orthodox Church is the Church of the East. Each church has its own garden to tend, its own traditions and ways. The East likes its priests bearded, the West prefers them shaved. The East likes them married, the West likes them married to the church. The East has no single head and spiritual leader: every national church is equal to its sister-church. The West has the Pope. The East takes for Eucharist its leavened bread mixed with wine, the West prefers unleavened bread for all, with wine for the clergy only. Such differences are normal and do not prevent the churches’ rapprochement (…) The biggest theological difference is filioque, which is so obscure that few worshippers understand or care.

Shamir, who was writing in the wake of the meeting between the Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill is absolutely correct: this minimal list of rather superficial “differences” is pretty much all that separates the modern and official types of Orthodoxy and Latin Christianity embodied by these two clerics. But if the meeting had taken place not between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill but, say, the Abbot of the Esphigmenou monastery on Mount Athos or the Rector of the The International Seminary of Saint Pius X in Ecône, Switzerland, the list of differences between the two religions would have been far more longer and substantive. It would have included a long list of irreconcilable dogmatic differences (the doxa, including the very concept of a super-bishop like the Pope) and an equally long and substantive list of differences in which Orthodox and Latin Christians live their faith on a daily basis (the praxis).

While in the recent pasts some Orthodox and Latin clerics have developed what could be called the “theology of the two lungs” which declares that the Orthodox Church and the Papacy are the “two lungs” of the Church (which is the theandric Body of Christ), the reality is that Orthodox and Latin ecclesiologies (the teaching about the nature of the Church) have been mutually exclusive at least since the 11th century and until the 20th century. Believe it or not, but even “traditionalist” (pre Vatican II) Latins are, from the point of view of traditional (early Church compatible) Orthodoxy heretics who have engaged in over one thousands years of innovations and departure from the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian” (St. Athanasios).

[Sidebar: when discussing theological topics “heretic” is not an insult but refers simply to any person who has made a “different choice” from the teaching of the Church. A “heresy” is thus just a “choice” of something different. This can be contrasted with, for example, the word “schismatic” who is a person creating a rift/division in a religious organization but without proclaiming any different teaching or dogma. By the way, “dogma” simply means “belief” in the sense of “accepted theological tenet”. Finally, the word canon simple means a rule, a measure, a standard. Nowadays these words elicit images of pyres, autodafés, witch-hunts, etc, but in reality these are absolutely necessary concepts to understand even the basics of Christian thought.]

If from a traditional Orthodox point of view Latins are heretics, then from the traditional Latin view the Orthodox are schismatics who have rebelled against the authority of the Pope and thereby cut themselves off the True Church entirely. Of course, nowadays, it is highly politically incorrect to say these thing that is why they are replaced by various ceremonies and meetings where the heads of the “official” (i.e. state supported) Orthodox and Latin churches hugs and kiss each other, exchanges presents and speak of unity. From the point of view of traditional (in the sense of “historical”) Orthodoxy and Papacy such displays of mutual affection are not only ridiculous, but they are highly immoral because they completely obfuscate the real and substantive reasons for the 1000 year long separation between the two denominations (what would Saint Nicholas of Myra have to say to such public hugging?!).

Just to give you a little taste of what kind of language the original Church used in describing interactions with heretics, let me quote from a canon of the Quinisextine Ecumenical Council (691), which both the Latin and Orthodox Churches fully recognized as authoritative, about marriage between Christians and heretics:

“An Orthodox (in the sense of “right believing” – the Saker) man is not permitted to marry an heretical woman, nor is an Orthodox woman to be joined to an heretical man. But if anything of this kind appear to have been done by any, we require them to consider the marriage null, and that the marriage be dissolved. For it is not fitting to mingle together what should not be mingled, nor is it right that the sheep be joined with the wolf, nor the lot of “sinners with the portion of Christ!“ (Canon LXXII)

Still feel like kissing and hugging? Let me repeat here that officially both Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis have never repudiated the Quinisextine Ecumenical Council (at least not yet!). Instead, they just don’t talk about such “minor and obscure” canons any more.

Are you shocked by this kind of language?

I can give you an even more shocking example.

All Christians are banned, by no less than the Holy Apostles themselves, to pray with anybody who does not fully and totally share the same exact faith as they do. Yup, both Latins and Orthodox are categorically banned from praying with each other, even in their private homes! Here is the exact quote:

Canon 10 of the Holy Apostles: “If one who is not in communion prays together, even at home, let him be excommunicated”.

And what about these canons:

Canon 45 of the Holy Apostles: “A Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon that only prays together with heretics, should be excommunicated; if he has permitted them to perform anything as Clergymen, let him be defrocked.”

Canon 64 of the Holy Apostles: “If a Clergyman or a Layman should enter a Jewish synagogue, or pray with heretics, let him be excommunicated and defrocked.”

Yes, Christians are banned from ever entering a synagogue which, of course, both the Latin Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow have done – they have even greeted the Judaics as “brothers” and the Pope went as far as to declare that they both are awaiting the return of the same Messiah!

Again, I fully understand that somebody would reject Christianity because such canons would offend his/her feelings, but what I don’t understand is how those who think of themselves as Christians can either reject or ignore them. After all, these are canons handed down from the Apostles themselves, canons which have been fully endorsed by the entire Christian Church for 2000+ years and which have never been denounced by either the Orthodox or the Latins (for a full list and interpretation of Apostolic canons see here).

[Sidebar: there is nothing as dangerous as when a novice in the subtle and often paradoxical theological matters grabs a book of canons and begins reading into it all sorts of prescriptions as to how things ought be to done. Canons are not dogmas, and what is important in them is not the letter, but the spirit. Furthermore, some canons have been deliberately set aside and that is exactly how this should be in a living Church which is not just a collection of old rules. I quote these canons solely to illustrate the language and spirit in which, they were written and to contrast them to the sugary language used in modern pseudo-theological declarations].

Those shocked by what might (mistakenly) appear as the intolerance contained in the examples I give above ought to consider a simple fact: unlike Pharisaic Talmudism (the religion of Maimonides, Karo and Luria, aka modern “Judaism”) the spiritual roots of Christianity are truly in the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: the ancient faith of the Jewish people before Christ and whose foremost Commandment is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me“. Replace the word “god” with the word “truth” (two aspects of the same reality, really) and you immediately get a sense of where the apparent “intolerance” of Christianity comes from. For example, the ban on marrying a heretic, even a Christian heretic, is a direct continuation of the ban for Jews taking spouses from other ethnicities. While Pharisaic Talmudism added a racist interpretation for this ban, the traditional Jewish and Christian ban is based on purely spiritual reasons: to jealously preserve the purity of the faith. And this is precisely why the LXXII Canon quoted above goes on to say:

But if any who up to this time are unbelievers and are not yet numbered in the flock of the orthodox have contracted lawful marriage between themselves, and if then, one choosing the right and coming to the light of truth and the other remaining still detained by the bond of error and not willing to behold with steady eye the divine rays, the unbelieving woman is pleased to cohabit with the believing man, or the unbelieving man with the believing woman, let them not be separated, according to the divine Apostle, “for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by her husband.”

In that case the Church does not speak of a “sheep be joined with the wolf” but of one spouse “sanctifying” the other. To sum this all up I would say that (the real, original) Judaism and Orthodox Christianity (the latter being a continuation of the former) place an immense emphasis on the Truth, on never placing the True and the False on the same level, on never obfuscating the differences between to different teachings.

In contrast, most modern Christian denominations couldn’t care less about any truth, be it historical, dogmatic or even factual.

[Sidebar: by ‘Truth” I mean something very specific. My spiritual father recently defined it as such “Truth is not a relative abstract but a cognitive monument formed by revealed absolutes” and that is as good a definition has I have ever seen]

I even believe that most modern Christian denominations have simply given up on the very concept of “truth” altogether. Their sole concern is expediency, really, some vague idea of “practical” as opposed to what is “theoretical”, such as any discussion of what the truth might be.

For example, modern Ecumenists will always proclaim that they believe in the same God, the same Trinity, the same Mother of God and that they therefore “recognize the validity of the Mysteries (called “Sacraments” in the West) of the other Ecumenists. Contrast that with the difference between the Orthodox and the Gnostics and Arians which could be summed up in two words which differ from each other only by, literally, a tiny letter iota: “homousios” versus “homiousios” (the former meaning “of the same substance” and the latter “of a similar substance”). Early Christians died because of this “tiny” difference! You can imagine what they would say if the saw Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis hugging each other and calling each other “brothers in the Christian faith“! Again, the point is not to discuss the difference between “same” and “similar” substances, but to contrast the difference in approach to issues of faith between early Christians and modern “official” religious leaders.

[Sidebar: this uniquely Christian form of “intolerance” was really bewildering to the pagan Romans who were far more similar to our modern Ecumenists. Most people don’t realize that pagan Romans never asked Christians to give up their faith. Neither did they want to force them to pray only to the Roman gods. “All” they wanted is for the Christians to also “honor” the Romans God by bringing them a small sacrifice, sometimes as small as just adding a few coals to the fire of a Roman god. And yet, the early Christians stubbornly refused such seemingly “small” gestures which they viewed as an apostasy because it equated false god with the One Real God. They chose horrible tortures and death rather than even give the external impression that they accepted the reality of Roman gods. Even those Christians who did not accept to offer a sacrifice to Roman god but who obtained a certificate stating that they had done so were referred to as “libellatici” (“certificate holders”) and considered as “lapsed” from the Church!]

So yes, it is true that modern Christians do not care about “obscure theological matters” and that is precisely what makes them so different from the True Christians of the early Church and those Orthodox Christians today who still hold the traditions “which have been passed on to them “whether by word or in writing” (2 Thes 2:15) and who still remember that even if “an angel from heaven” would preach a “different gospel” to them that they should reject him as “accursed” (Gal 1:8).

While for original Christians “obscure theological matters” were important enough to be tortured to death for, for modern “post-Christian Christians” they basically irrelevant. They have long forgotten the warning from God “because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit thee out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16) and all they care for is for the external unity of Christian denomination, nevermind if they hold mutually exclusive theological views or even, no theological views at all like the amazing Unitarian Universalists (aka the “youyoohs”) who embody syncretism lead to its logical conclusion.

The ethos of YOLO and DILLIGAF

At the end of the day, all these modern “decaf denominations” which have really done away with “intolerance” and “zealotry” result in a society were nobody gives a damn anymore, a society where the anti-spirituality of the ethos YOLO and DILLIGAF provide the basis for endless consumerism and general stupidification. This is the kind of anti-religion which the New World Order needs – a religion which would unite all of mankind into a single, vapid, shapeless mass serving the NWO and its 1% leaders by consuming, obeying and never asking a question, especially about what is or is not true. This is why the powers that be and the media put such an effort into promoting these “official” religions and why they constantly fawn over their leaders.

Think of it – does it not strike you as paradoxical that Christ said “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:18-19) and yet the very same corporate media who serves the AngloZionist Empire and its planned New World Order also would give putatively “Christian” leaders the kind of coverage which normally goes to Rock stars?

When was the last time you ever heard one of those “superstar religious leaders” dare to denounce the modern rulers of our world as genocidal mass murderers they are or simply as hypocrites? But no, they meet with them and they hug, they smile, they kiss – each time a big love fest. Long gone is the time when Christian leaders had the courage to openly criticize an Empress (like Saint John Chrysostom) or dare to speak to a modern leader like Saint Philip II, Metropolitan of Moscow, who refused to bless the Czar Ivan the Terrible after a church service and instead publicly castigated him in the following words:

I don’t recognize the Orthodox Czar any more. I don’t recognize him in his rule, O Lord! We are here bringing a sacrifice to God, while behind the alter the blood of innocent Christians is shed. Since the sun shines in the sky it has never been seen or heard that a pious Czar would outrage his own kingdom in such a way! Even if the most impious and pagan kingdoms there is the rule of law and the Truth, and there is mercy towards the people, but not in Russia! You are high on your throne, but there is an Almighty Judge above you. How will you face his judgment? Covered in the blood of the innocent, made deaf by the sound of their tortured screams? Even the stones under your feet are demanding vengeance O Lord! I am telling you as a pastor of souls – fear the One God!

Can you imagine an Orthodox Patriarch or a Latin Pope addressing, say, Obama with such words? And while Saint Philip was eventually tortured and murdered for his courage, modern Patriarchs and Popes incur no such risks. And yet they remain silent: they see nothing, hear nothing and, above all, say nothing. YOLO and DILLIGAF indeed…

This is why the Empire and the New World Order loves them.

Conclusion – what religion is not

I have tried to show the various reasons why I consider that most of what is called “religion” today is nothing of the kind. We live in a world of pseudo-everything, an “Empire of Illusions” to borrow Chris Hedges‘ expression. Original Christianity was an intensely mystical faith, one which centered on prayer and asceticism, which lead to an intensely personal experience of God and His uncreated energies was never detached from a zealous determination to preserve the purity of the original faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers“. Early Christian monasticism is a perfect example of this “symphony” between individual spiritual struggles and public action in defense of the faith: while in normal times monastics lived in remote locations and deserts, they always left their secluded dwellings to enter the city and publicly defy and condemn any heresy. In modernist Orthodox denominations this kind of individual responsibility has been replaced with a “keep praying, shut up and mind your business” attitude (I have witnessed that myself in the Russian Orthodox Church as recently as the 2000-2007 time period).

Truly, the state of religions today is a sad one and you will not hear me defend it. Christ warned about that when he said “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Mat 5:13). Yes, sure, the modernists currently control all the holy places (ancient churches and cathedrals), courtesy of secular police forces who are more than happy to evict “non-official” denominations from their places of worship, but this was also predicted by Christ when he spoke of the “abomination of desolation” in the “holy place” (Mat 24:15). There is probably nothing much we, the simple people, can do about that. But what we can do is remember the “real thing” and never allow the modern “verisimilitudinous Christianity” to take its place in our hearts and minds. Finally, we should always remember the words of Christ who told us that His Church was the “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mat 16:18). This means that no matter how ugly and even horrible our situation becomes, God will never let His Church truly disappear from our world. Somewhere, maybe only in a small corner of our planet, His Church will always survive, faithful to the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers, unchanged by all the persecutions and slow motion descent into apostasy of the rest of the world. And if somebody really wants to find this Church, he/she will. This is also a promise Christ made to all of us: “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” (Mat 5:6).

The Saker

PS: I fully realize that the above will deeply irritate and offend some readers. My views are the expression of a culture and a faith which is long gone. You can think of me as an “alien”, if you want. I have to warn you that the only criticism I really fear is if you told me that in the above I misrepresented the true and original mindset, or phronema, of the Church Fathers and of the Early Christians. If I am guilty of that, then I sincerely apologize and repent for it. But if I ruffled the feathers or rattled the cages of the modern “post-Christian Christians” and of the usual gang of religion-hating secularists, then so be it! This is not a popularity contest but simply my personal witness to my readers. Like in an AA meeting, you can take or leave any or all of it :-)

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

170 Comments

I think it is western scientific culture that presents an aberrant world view, that shuns man’s inherent mystical state. In almost all cultures it is acknowledged that their is a spiritual realm with higher orders of intelligence. Multiple dimensions are assumed. We are spirits on a journey; and when someone dies, most cultures see that as a transition and not non-existence.

I think it is easy to critique organized religions. The Buddha told followers not to create statues of him. Christ talked about the corruption of the Jewish hierarchy and how they had wandered far from the old testament prophets. I don’t think the Catholic Church or Buddhist statues would surprise either of them.

More important than a critique of huge ancient rich churches is a critique of science. Science is the new religion full of dogmatic priests and stuffed full of money. Science is used in an authoritative manner, the infallibility of the science, ‘settled science.’ Science has become a faith-based religion for the nonscientific millions who believe in global warming, the purity of vaccinations, and fluoride. Calls are made to lock up heretics, climate deniers, to take the ‘anti-vaxxers’ children away. Science is the most powerful church today, and like all mystical religions that became ‘box-office’, it is growing in corruption and greed. Let us include this mighty church in our critique of religion.

I am a retired chemist. My career was invested in providing a supporting function for environmental and health related research. I achieved some moderate degree of success in government, business, legal and academic organizations. My direct experience includes pursuit of US Federal funding as well as participation in the evaluation of others research grant proposals.

Your concerns about the influence of mammon in Science are on firm ground. As with most other human endeavors, cronyism is the order of the day in Science. Our establishment funding organizations can assure that no threatening ideas are likely to be funded. For example, have you seen any published studies of extra-terrestrial polar ice caps as a means to test what, if any, role changes in solar output have on supposed climate change? Do you really believe a clinical study with fewer than 10,000 patients sampled out of a population of 330,000 people has any hope of having even 1 sample of people who have a genetic feature that is present in 10% of the population? What are the chances the result of that 1 patient who happens to be included in the study will not be excluded as a statistical outlier? Does it comfort you to know that scientific papers from US Federal research facilities are subject to a final policy approval before publication?

So, not only is Science a religion, it is firmly under the control of Satan. In spite of the control, there are many capable, sincere, dedicated individuals out here whose belief is that the Scientific Method is the best process that God has revealed to us to study the physical world. An acid test to identify the false scientists is to see whether they design experiments to test a hypothesis or to “prove” a theory.

Remember, the original sin reported in Genesis was man attempting to be like God. Still the same.

“In spite of the control, there are many capable, sincere, dedicated individuals out here whose belief is that the Scientific Method is the best process that God has revealed to us to study the physical world.”

“Remember, the original sin reported in Genesis was man attempting to be like God. Still the same.”

Ah, the apple – now that has caused a storm in a teacup. Since, allegedly, it was man’s “sin” that started the death “thing” even the poor old animals were tainted by that one and the pre-planned lake of fire was opened up for it’s pre-known human residents to inhabit.

I guess man couldn’t really have been blamed (since, allegedly, he was given eyes to see & a brain to think) for attempting to be like that creator (if the creator had been good) – that being is sure one smart cookie. If only man had known the deity was not of decent character after all he could have saved the teacup tantrum and not attempted to be like the deity in the first place. While it would have been a dull existence at least it would have lasted ad-infinitum and the sulphur pit avoided…decisions decisions.

If that old story is true then sh*t happens (I guess).

“Your concerns about the influence of mammon in Science are on firm ground.”

Agreed – my daughter (studying Biological Chemistry) just attended interview at a law firm specialising in patent law for genetic discoveries. Apparently most cancer treatments (cures) and longevity treatments are already in their 12 year field trials. Of course she also mentioned she’d be unable to describe any of that in detail if her contract was signed. While the rich could transport to Elysium
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) – “Elysium is technologically advanced with some of its technology including Med-Bays: medical machines that can cure all diseases, reverse the aging process, and regenerate new body parts”) for most of the rest of us narrow is the way and the future is bleak.

Oh Saker! what a bitter cup to see myself in this mirror you hold in front of my unworthy face! So much we have walked, I feel tired and sad, and there is still so much more to go…Will He have mercy? So much love…

“His mercy endures forever'”… and ever, and ever. please so my reply to the Saker’s article somewhere below your comment. It “seems” to me that all of Scripture is always calling us to “come” with a humble heart. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Isaiah 1:18.

And then Jesus woo’d us in Matt. 11:28-30 by saying, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

As I said in part of my response to Saker, All of Scripture “seems” to tell that God will never forsake a humble heart.

May the mercy, salvation, and deliverance from evil be richly poured out upon you and all those you cherish, in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. jdh

@ jdh
Thanks a lot for a very comforting answer. It lies probably in our unfinished nature to let ourselves indulge in self pity the moment we are confronted with our failures. I really appreciate this. May His Love also be with you, always.

Fabulous article Saker, the depth and breadth of knowledge is impressive. I would like to write something in reply but no time to do justice.

Rather I’d like yourself and readers to consider there is new data and a scholarly approach to this data, centred mainly on the phenomenon of Near Death Experiences. Much coherence and much coherence with what you say.

They did indeed. The transfiguration experiences of many saints echo NDEs.

But Saker please check the links, research in this field is making very interesting strides of late.

Such research is disdained by those wedded to doctrinal positions, be they religious or secular-materialist. Because the data don’t totally support any organised religious creed (rather an interesting mixture of Eastern and Western Faiths) and certainly don’t support atheistic materialism.

Based on the Gospel records existing about Him, Lord Jesus did not live the monastic or “ascetical” lifestyle. Based on the same records, He did not teach nor practice the “mystical method” of the monastic cadres which took over in the early centuries of the Christian church. Nothing in His teachings resembled an “imitation of Christ crucified on the cross.”

Here is an excerpt from a script [“Dracula: The Confidential Story”]
that summarizes this so-called mysticism.

INT. A CHAMBER IN THE MANSION, HOURS LATER – DAY.
Van Helsing stands at the head of a table around which there sit,
most attentively, Seward, Morris and Lord Godalming. Everyone
wears funereal black.

VAN HELSING
(lecturing; thick accent, English
definitely not native language)
The mysticism of the Christian faith
is the ground for all high virtue and
goodness in the West. All the concepts
we have of virtue, but maybe he is not
true virtue.
(pause)
Still, this is the method:—
first, awaken to your sinfulness compared
to the perfection and purity of God.
Second, react with great, great hatred
for your own freedom and for your own
body. Third, you with utmost zeal deny
all your own natural desires and force
yourself away from anything attractive
but embrace all repulsive so to destroy
all influence of sensual pleasure.
Fourth, you then enter new mental
station, and you begin seeing visions,
hearing voices, commune with divine
intelligence.
(longer pause)
Next, you forsake and lose even all
spiritual pleasures, just as you forsake
pleasures of flesh. You undergo
the dreadful school of suffering love.
You come to hate your spiritual self
just like you come to hate your carnal
self. Then you become filled with the
energy of suffering to do heroic deeds
of great personal leadership and power,
yet with total self-abasement to God.**

ANOTHER ANGLE on everyone.—PAUSE.

VAN HELSING
(solemnly)
All our concepts of good and bad,
virtue and vice, right and wrong,
in our civilization,—they draw
from this fundamental path of struggle
and self-denial, so to become closer
to God and to Christ on the cross.
(pause; sighs deeply)
But if you ask me,—did our Lord Jesus
live this way and do this? I cannot
for truth tell you, yes He did.
Sometimes we men like to take things
farther than that God Himself command.
If we make virtue too hard, the backdoor
to evil, he opens up behind us unawares.

Thus, given that the apostles themselves also never lived the monastic and ascetical lifestyle,
it would be interesting to probe the details of how it is that monasticism and asceticism and its
devotees rose to dominate the Christian community within the next 100-200 years. This was actually the first great deviation from the concrete example, words, thoughts and deeds of Lord
Jesus Himself. If “patristic Christianity” is monasticism and asceticism, then it stands as the first
and maybe the greatest “heresy”.

Those pagan Romans were ferocious and fanatical in their own right; otherwise, they would have never asked the Christians to make any “offering” to pagan gods in the first place, nor would they have punished Christians ferociously for refusing the offering.

I always thought that the Apostles did live monastically – not in the later sense of cloistered seclusion and isolation, but in the literal sense of leaving their professions and possessions to follow Jesus, not just spiritually but also physically (the fishermen Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew, for example).

I don’t see why they would. Even though the “original” model for the story was a Romanian Prince. The story itself is about a vampire in Transylvania. In those days it was Hungarian. And the official Church authority was Latin not Orthodox. Personally though, I don’t believe in things like that. I think it makes an interesting fairy tale. As does,Cinderella,Hansel and Gretel,Beauty and the Beast,Snow White,etc. All of those from Western and Central Europe.

Thank-you Saker. I am not in agreement with everything you have stated, but I appreciate how you honor the deep roots of the Church. I so deeply love God, the Creator, and His Son, and the Holy Mother Bride- they are the air in which my spirit breathes and my soul truly knows herself. Like you I feel such an alien in the secular ‘post Christian society”- (its greatest atrocities are yet to come), where Truth is extinct. How I long for a parish where a bond of sacred worship would unite us as brothers and sisters in Truth. (I find that here at the Saker sometimes).

It occurs to me that it is the Great Deceiver who dismisses an iota as inconsequential. An iota is the vast difference between Truth and Lie. BTW have you read Soloviev “A Short Story of the Anti-Christ” lately? He requests only one teeny, tiny iota.
Cheer, Blessings, and Grace to you and the community
K

Saker,
Welcome back from the Pascha break and thank you for this very interesting piece.
I hope your theology book coming along well.
Many interesting points, but just a comment on just this: “using religion as an instrument to foster patriotism and social responsibility. Sadly, there is a lot of that in modern Russia.”
Isn’t this what being a Christian nation should be about – patriotism and social responsibility as practical application of people’s faith, as they “live their faith on a daily basis (the praxis)”?
I find Putin’s messages on religious feast days, for instance, quite proper. He lays emphasis on what should ne the results of religion in the life of the nation. F.ex., in his Easter message he recalled that Easter “unites [the nation] around enduring Orthodox spiritual values, centuries-old historical and cultural traditions of our people.”
The message to the Patriarch was similarly proper: as a Christian, he wrote, “The great holiday of Easter turns us to spiritual values of Orthodoxy, gives sincere joy and consolidates faith in the triumph of justice.” Then, as a Head of State, he expressed satisfaction with the way the Church helps the State in promoting unity (e.g., work with non-orthodox religious communities), moral education and community-mindedness.http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51838
This is what hw’s been saying all along, and he reiterated it in his Time Mag interview: “Russia is an ancient country with historical, profound traditions and a very powerful moral foundation. And this foundation is a love for the Motherland and patriotism. Patriotism in the best sense of that word.”
(Interview with Time,20/12/2007 – http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24735)
In this interview (and elsewhere) Putin also agrees with you on “Religions as basis for ethical values” the foremost of which is patriotism: “We need to pay the utmost attention to our common moral values and consolidate Russian society on this basis. I think that this is an absolute priority.” (Same interview)
Previous messages also followed the same pattern: both Church and State have each their specific field of action, but they support each other for the greater good of the nation. You will recall that when Putin visited the US (around 9/11) he spoke to the leaders of the two opposing sides (or were there 3 – the pro-union, the anti- and the fence-sitters?) in a tone and words that were assessed as being instrumental in driving the process forward. While emphasising that he was not meddling in religious affairs per se, he spoke not just as a Head of State, but as a Christian as well, outlining the good that would redound to the good of Russia as a Christian country.
(There is a report somewhere on the web on this meeting at the Ambassador’s residence, which I can’t locate it right now, but I remember the reporter was amazed that Putin spoke with deep feeling and conviction, which he thought was a stark departure from his usual “dry style.”)
Putin continued to support the process, and was very much involved in the concluding processes and ceremonies, receiving the dignitaries, including at his home, and invariably giving them brief but powerful pep talk…
I had thought this was what was expected as per tradition – or what little I know of it. But not being a Russian myself, perhaps this is not how it works out on the ground – or this is not how it is perceived by those who know the actual situation?
This is something worth discussing, given the importance to the future of the world of Russia – as a country where Church and State work hand in hand in this (to us non-Russians) peculiar and, frankly, surprising manner.
And I for one should be quite upset and disappointed – not to say depressed – if it turned out that the Russians were not supportive of the current mode of Church-State cooperation. Or perhaps it is simply the way the current Patriarch and the current President are going about it?
Can you perhaps give an example or two of “the “Patriarch” is now playing a very important political role” – i.e., stepping out of his proper role?

Isn’t this what being a Christian nation should be about – patriotism and social responsibility as practical application of people’s faith, as they “live their faith on a daily basis (the praxis)”?

Yes, but the Church cannot be used as a tool, reduced to a means towards an end. If anything, it should be the other way around. The state ought to be the protector of the Church and this ‘symphony’ of the Church and the Christian state ought to jointly stand against Evil (in all its aspects) and promote the condition for a healthy spiritual life.

Can you perhaps give an example or two of “the “Patriarch” is now playing a very important political role” – i.e., stepping out of his proper role?

Frankly, I rather not. It is not my purpose to make in ‘inventory’ of all the wrongs of the Moscow Patriarchate or Patriarch Kirill. Believe me, I could come up with a very long and detailed list, but that is not my intention here. I use the example of the Moscow Patriarchate to illustrate a much wider problem and I would like to focus on that.

how many priests have you met in your life?
but anyway,
no, that is a bad argument and a cheap shot.
unlike monastics, priests live in the world and and suffer from the same problems as the rest of is. and they are not saints either. it is much easier for a monastic to remain healthy because he enjoy mostly the healthy food served in the monastery, but a parish priests is often overworked and overstressed. so quick eating on the go is what a lot of them end up doing. and when they are invited somewhere, they are expected to eat all the delicious food lovingly prepared for them by well intentioned parishioners who often don’t think about dietary value.
so no, that is not a clue to anything, at least not about priests…

Being of Russian parents I am well aware of pirogi as well as the much more fattening dishes. Look up what ‘holodets’ is for example (one reason I became a non-meat eater when I was of age.

I would add that as a very young boy I went through some NDE’s which have shaped my life’s outlook. From an early age I realized that: nobody leaves this place alive, you’re not taking anything with you, that which you learn here does not carry over to the next realm. Finally, my purpose is to leave this plane having cleansed myself of ‘passions’.

Exactly, Saker. There is the doctrine of the “two swords” and the distinction “lords spiritual” and “lords temporal.” The Church is there to save souls and to transmit spiritual truths and carry out the rites and sacraments of the religion, hence also to preserve eternal principles and to provide a saving discernment and choice for men. The aristocracy (for in traditional worlds there are no “republics” or “presidents”) is there to protect the spiritual Tradition, and to govern the land with justice and magnanimity. The monarchy derives its authority directly from the archetype of God’s–or the Logos’– rulership of the cosmos, whereas the authority of the Church hierarchy derives from the same eternal and universal Logos, but in its specifically Christian manifestation. If the temporal power seeks to usurp spiritual authority or works to undo it, it loses its very reason for being, since its authority must be exercise within a particular revealed sacred framework which alone can consecrate it–“no bishop, no king.” Conversely, the spiritual authority must become politicized and encroach on the prerogatives of the temporal royal authority. This is just what happened to the Latin Church towards the end of the middle ages and above all during the period of the renaissance popes.

Thank you Saker. One of the best understandings of Christianity today I’ve read. One small point I’d like to say on it. In the pass at times when some leaders (and many others) retired they might enter a Monastery or become a monk . And it wasn’t uncommon for a leader to go into a Church or Monastery to pray for guidance on a particular issue of the day. That was a time when leaders (some certainly falsely,but others not) took God’s will on something to be the most important judgement of an issue.If a leader today would seclude themselves away to pray for guidance, they’d be considered insane.Times have certainly changed,and not for the better.

Well, I recall Putin doing that, and several times.
But yes, not only leaders.
Every Orthodox Christian ought to spend some time on a regular basis on a monastery.
Monasticism is the true measure of “orthopraxis” and it has always been the standard of Orthodox life, for laypeople too.
Cheers,
The Saker

well, my feeling is that while Putin has certainly evolved since he moved to the Kremlin (before that he knew very little about religion), and while he is certainly trying, he has a very very long way to go to become a spiritually enlightened person. and his entire environment makes it very difficult for him to separate *real* spirituality from the kind of state-sanctioned “official religion” which Putin inherited (so I don’t blame him for it).
My gut feeling is that knowing that his efforts at liberating Russia from the Empire might result in a nuclear war and the fact that he now lived in the Kremlin, a historical and spiritual place of immense significance, has made him far more “spiritual” than before and I would not be surprised if one day, maybe after his retirement (if the Empire does not murder him before), he might become seriously religious. But right now I don’t think he has much time to dedicate for his internal spiritual quests.
I might be wrong, of course.
Cheers,
The Saker

As regards your comments on the Kirill – Francis meeting, discussions on theological issues have actually been taking place between the two churches, but with little significant progress. And they won’t now, since Francis is not really interested in theology, but only in getting along with everyone never mind their “orientation”. “Don’t worry, be happy” seems to be the order of the day. Francis is drowning his church in “an avalanche of mercy” as a Catholic scholar put it.
Despite the joint statement touching on most of the issues that have been under discussion over the years (merely par acquit de conscience, no doubt), the aim was to agree on immediate measures to be taken on the immediate problem of the Middle East Christians. However, the only step in this direction seems to be some joint work between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Catholic Diocese of Moscow, both side suggesting that “This follows from the Kirill – Francis meeting in Havana.” http://www.pravmir.com/russian-catholic-churches-to-make-list-of-destroyed-churches-monasteries-in-syria/ ; http://www.pravmir.com/moscow-patriarchate-and-roman-catholic-church-launch-joint-project-in-support-of-syrian-christians/
The fact is that Pope Francis seems to be interested only in “symbolic” gestures like adopting three Syrian Muslim families… “Silly” would be the correct word, given that he could use his power to put pressure on countries that support terrorism, as Archbishop Jeanbart of Aleppo has been begging him to do for all these years – in vain. It would seem that he was not serious when he signed the joint statement, by which he committed himself and his church to supporting the persecuted Middle East Christians. Clearly they are not “sexy” enough, and he much prefers photo ops with Muslims in Lesbos… A strange man. Perhaps Michel Chossudovsky‘s assessment is correct after all – http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-pope-who-is-francis-i-cardinal-jorge-mario-bergoglio-and-argentinas-dirty-war/5326675

Keep in mind that if Patriarch Kirill signs any kind of “union” with the Pope he will face a very strong internal revolt and a guaranteed schism inside the Moscow Patriarchate. And he knows that, so he is very, very limited on what he can say and do. Just look what happened to Metropolitan Isidore of Russia following the false Union of Florence

“… if Patriarch Kirill signs any kind of “union” with the Pope”?
There seems to be no such plans at all, and no reason to suppose that the Patriarch would think of signing any union. Discussion about “doctrinal rapprochement” is “absolutely off the agenda,” Metropolitan Hilarion stressed during an interview.
The meeting, he explained, was really about “learning to live and to act in this world not as competitors, but as brothers, to work together in order to protect our common values”… “without accepting any doctrinal compromise.” https://mospat.ru/en/2016/02/18/news128648/

Thank you for this article. As a fellow Christian I want to say, that I never felt at home in any of the churches that exist out there. I want to say that faith and religion are two separate entities. If one wants to live by the old ways then don’t listen to “authority”. Live by Jesus and the New Testament and you will be part of the early church. And pray for the brothers and sisters who are misled.

Many thanks for describing what religion is not. I await a future article on what it is.

Russia needs a national idea. So does the world need an international one. I think Russia is way ahead in this regard.

Oh the irony of the Orthodox and Latin churches excommunicating each other.

Truth as a cognitive monument of revealed absolutes. How true.

Obscure theological matter once led to torture. Now obscure philosophical ones do.

The two icons of Christ that grace this thread have blue and brown eyes. Brings to mind the north-south dynamic the Russian philosopher Irene Caesar talks about. Many Russians have blue eyes from ancestors who came through the magnetic north pole. The brown eyed people came from Africa according to current science. She relates that to the tension today between Russians and Khazars. The zionists have to destroy Russia in this blood feud. Talk about political absolutes that trump the east west divide.

I’ve been a catholic priest and monastery monk; and a new age priest and post-modern wonk. I believe you represent the phronema very accurately as well as the modern mindset.

The early comments on the Science of Religion and near death experiences with the links is instructive.

In this vineyard there is more going down than wine. The level of discourse is deliciously fine.

Oh the irony of the Orthodox and Latin churches excommunicating each other.

Not at all. In fact the Latins have lifted their excommunication since they now allow the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist in their churches. And that is what really makes no sense at all (schismatics are always banned from receiving the Eucharist as long as they remain in schism).

The lifting of anathema depends solely on the repentance of the one condemned. The two causes for which a person may be anathematized are heresy and schism. Now, who stands condemned?

“I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” (John 12, 47-49)

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (John 3, 16-21)

It seems the further man gets away from hunting and gathering, the more time he/she has for thinking, the crazier things get.
I guess if Adam and Eve came into this world with nothing, their descendants would have gone through the hunting and gathering stage before domesticating animals and developing agriculture and permanent dwellings.

The nation, laws, spirit/spirits, code of conduct, land, how to use the land, what to eat/what not to eat, marriage, ect – all rolled into one bundle, none a separate entity.

It seems that in some point in time, perhaps in the middle east, or perhaps just wherever agriculture and permanent communities started/arose, religion became separated from land and nation, a separate entity with much fine print.

Thank you, Saker, for your well thought out Epistle. As a committed Orthodox Christian (ROCOR) I do agree with most of what you write. However, just a few immediate random thoughts:

1) Nothing on this earth is absolutely perfect due to the Fall. Only Christ Himself and His Immaculate Mother. Our task is to learn from the Gospels, the Apostles, the Church Fathers and the Saints. Which is Orthodoxy.
2) We are responsible for our own actions and will ultimately be judged by Our Lord accordingly, not on those of others, including Church Hierarchs.
3) We believe that the Holy Spirit does guide the (Orthodox) Church and that therefore Our Lord will protect those who in all truth wish to follow and love and worship Him, and cannot be let astray.
4) We must celebrate and receive the most Pure Mysteries according to the Liturgies of Sts. John Chrystosom and Basil the Great. As well as the other mysteries/sacraments according to the timeless praxis of the Orthodox Church.
5) Church buildings, Monasteries, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Monastics, ceremonies, vestments, liturgical items, hymnology et all., bear witness, and show the splendor of the Faith, to believers and non-believers alike.
6) The Church, not of the world, but in the world, must engage both governments and society and try and shape its governance and social life as much as possible according to God’s (Natural) Laws.
7) In Russia there obviously is a very close and mutually respectful relationship between the Church and Patriarchate on the one hand and the Government on the other. Many may feel uneasy about this alliance, however, in the darkness and post-Christian era we find ourselves in, I for one applaud the current situation. I believe it will continue to secure and protect the freedom of the Church to give glory to God, to freely preach the Gospel, do works of mercy, and offer the Sacraments, and for the people to be, or become, Christian, without interference from the Government and/or anti-Christian laws.
8) The contrast between Russia and the post Christian West is striking. Here we “legalize” and glory in depravity in all its forms and expressions and impose thought control. Here Christians are marginalized and we are not far away from real persecution. From here we export chaos, destruction, mass killings, and rule like demoniacs and want to impose by force this madness on the entire world.
9) It is perfectly clear to me that Russia now is the “Shining City on a Hill”. And I also believe that this is to a large extend due to the influence, and historical tradition, of the Orthodox Church on that Society.
10) All I, as an American, can say is; God bless Russia, its government and people, and may she be a powerful, shining, bright light for good in the darkness we have created for ourselves.
11) Finally, perfection is found only in Heaven!

Saker: I am now an old man. I would call myself an agnostic who glances at ancient mystical notions like, karma, for instance. For me, everything must be questioned, studied…..
Here is a “tip” for you–especially when you deal with hard-nosed Christians. Simply ask them if they have read the new Testament and, in particular, The Sermon on the Mount in the book of Matthew, chapters, 5,6, and 7. Over 100 straight verses spoken by Christ(including his commandments). Then look them in the eyes and ask: “Can you even scratch the surface of what He says we must do?

I asked a “devoted” Christian to do that. Her pastor talks mostly from “revelations” and the old testament. She knew nothing about the Sermon on the Mount. About 2 months passed, and one day I asked her if she read it. She looked at me somewhat shyly and said she had read it. I then asked her if she knew ANYONE who was a real Christian. She answered, “No.”

Mr. Old Agnostic, I do not really see in what respect the Beatitudes are a response to the “hard-nosed” Christians, when you read them in context.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

is linked with:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets… Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23, 31-37)

“Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” (Luke, 11, 47-51).

These are “revelations” of the New Testament. It looks like you failed to “question, study everything”

Religion can be described as being many things, & it definitely is a way in which human beings attempt to make sense out of reality, a reality that is essentially a total mystery. Science has done nothing to really get to the bottom of this mystery, the more that is discovered, the more questions it generates, & the attempt by materialist mechanistic science to reduce everything to a chain of cause-&-effect chemical reactions, i.e. ‘causality,’ is perhaps among the most monstrous pseudo-philosophical aberrations of our time. It has caused the contemporary existential crisis that is gnawing away at what is sometimes called ‘Western civilization.’ It has reduced life to a pointless exercise in self-aggrandizement & instant gratification. And so it is destroying itself, & threatening to take the world with it. This is one of the reasons why in the West, in the establishment circles, the intelligentsia – if it can be called that – there is such a deep hatred for Russia. It goes much deeper than the Eastern & Western churches, although there is much to this as well, but the kind of comments made by revolting imbeciles such as Carl Bildt – that Orthodox Christianity presents a greater threat to the West than Islam – (an unbelievable comment if there ever was one) – does contain a degree of perverted sick logic. These people fear a truly authentic Christian revival in Russia, they are aware the power that such a phenomenon could bring with it, were it to occur. They sense that it may occur, the signs are there, there are tendencies leaning in that direction, & Putin hints at it some what. This is something that the Anglo-American Empire fears more than anything else, because it would threaten the very foundations of the system, & the foundations are based on an idea, a concept, which basically tries to tell us that the world as we see it, experience it, is all there is, there is nothing else, science has proven that there is no spiritual force in the world, everything can be reduced to the workings of a machine-type organism, this is what nature is, a machine, existing by accident for its own sake, with no purpose or objective other than to survive at any other’s expense & to satisfy the senses with about as much indulgence as one can acquire, & acquisition is realized by any means necessary, including destruction of any perceived obstacle.This is the insanity at the heart of the Anglo Empire. A religious revival in Russia threatens to overturn this & return the notion of purpose to life, the idea that we exist in a reality which is so obviously meant for something that it is staring us in the face each day, the fact that it is not obvious to us what that purpose is is one of the joys of life, it is one aspect of life that propels our need to explore, to inquire, to investigate, to try to get closer to our Creator as it were. The sense that life is sacred & that we are all our brother’s keeper is just an anathema to the Empire, this is another aspect of Christianity that an authentic revival would bring back to the world, an ethic that is so sorely needed that if it is not returned we are probably all doomed, one way or another, sooner or later. I think such discussions are sorely needed because the ethos of authentic Christianity spreads through word of mouth, it is not a typical ideological construct spread through political movements but rather practice & preaching, of a certain form, are the means of perpetuating this idea. We have to return the idea of purpose back to the world, the idea that we are here for a reason, the ultimate truth of that reason may be forever beyond us & possibly we are not even supposed to know, but that there is obviously a Creator, something has created, generated this reality that we were born into & it is clearly sacred, this is something that needs to be said repeatedly, & stressed as much as possible.

The spiritual world (God) is always sending teachers to humanity to renew their direct conscious connection to their origin in the spiritual world, since spiritual impulses which descend into the material world always degenerate and eventually go to hell. There are two recent examples of this: 1) Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) Who founded the Anthroposophical Society, gave 6000 lectures and wrote 30 books. He taught in Germany in the period 1900-1925. 2) Judith von Halle (born 1972, Berlin,Germany). She received the stigmata (the wounds of Christ) on her body in 2004. She lectures in Berlin and has written a number of books.

let me comment on a few points from your article as a rare (sad as it is) scientific atheist among your readership (don’t think I’ve seen even one in the ~50 replies above). A lot of what you write is correct, of course, like the shallowness of most modern “religion” and their abuse by state power, etc, so I’ll just skip those parts and focus on the point that made me flinch a bit.

> ” for all their real crimes, religions still favorably compare to modern secular and putatively
> “enlightened” ideologies (from the Masonic French Revolution. to Marxists class warfare, to
> modern Capitalism) whose “atrocity scorecard” goes in the hundreds of millions. Those who
> believe that religions cause atrocities simply fail to understand that religions always bring
> people together and that people always behave in the violent way, including religious people

I consider that to be highly arguable. Religions have a thousand-year history of causing wars, bloodshed, ethnic cleansings, genocide. It can probably be said that most major wars in history had some religious background, even if for many it may have been more of an “official” billboard than the real reason (which was more often than not economical, or as simple as the Nazis’ desire for more “Lebensraum”). But religions, for sure, in 90%+ of cases, did exactly *nothing* to prevent wars, rather they facilitated and simplified them. Even Strelkov – whom I highly respect, by the way, and whom I have repeatedly donated to, just like many other people whom I believe to do good things – rather disturbingly replied to me to a question of whether he treats atheist comrades the same way as religious ones – that he does not trust atheists to “go all the way” since they do not believe in an afterlife (which rather conveniently ignores that the vast majority of Soviet people who fought and died in WW2 were atheists). Even if one would agree with that – well, this attitude is pretty much the same one found with Jihadi suicide bombers. Is that a good thing, though? We don’t see too many atheist suicide bombers around though, do we? Neither do we see an “Atheist State” chopping off people’s heads and invading other countries just for believing in a wrong god. And there’s not really ever been one, either. Contrary to popular belief, the Nazis (“Gott mit uns” was engraved on Wehrmacht belt buckles, and, again quite disturbingly, the Russian “С нами бог” is just a mirror version of the same thing – not that I equate Russia and Nazism, of course!) weren’t anywhere near atheist. One can argue about the French revolutionaires of Marat and Robespierre caliber, who were definitely quite radical and probably fairly atheist and caused as many as 40’000 casualties (doesn’t look like much by modern standards, does it though). But the religious Napoleon, who came right after them, caused several million casualties. The Bolsheviks might be your best bet, historically seen. But even their fairly brutal system of the 10s-20s is really nothing extraordinary in a very long row of religious terror states. They just had a bigger country to play with, and lots of external enemies (let’s not forget that right after the revolution, a total 7-8 of Christian and not-so-Christian states suddenly decided that they wanted a piece of Russia..). And it’s curious that, given some time and a pragmatic leader in Stalin, the system quickly evolved to something very different and nowhere near as evil as e.g. the current “Christian” Western countries.

Which brings me to my main point regarding ideology: what about scientific communism of the late USSR? I grew up in that system, the 70s and 80s. You may not have seen it, but IMHO – it was in no way worse than Christianity, rather a good deal better, since it founded on positivism, rationalism, civilian ethics (which were taught in Soviet schools) and scientific curiosity. The Strugatzky’s “Monday begins on Saturday” novel or the “22nd Century. Mid-day.” cycle is a great example of the “ideologic” standpoint many Soviet people had back then. Space or aviation achievements were the pride of nearly everyone, natural scientists and engineers were very respected professions (though this increasingly deteriorated in the late USSR for various reasons). The self-understanding of Soviet scientists (and many other people – though not all) was that “we stand for the good, humane values in an evil and backward capitalist world”. And btw it is still rather widely found all over the world – but largely restricted to universities’ natural science faculty beyond PhD student level. Dawkins mentions this, but it’s trivial knowledge in science circles really – the overwhelming majority (well over 90%, up to 93-95% for physicists and 97% for biologists) of natural scientists (who are used to thinking with their head independently) at PhD+ level are atheists. No matter which religious family or background they came from. And this has very good reasons.

And Dostoevsky’s “if there is no God all is permissible” line from Brother Karamazov is, honestly, rather ridiculous to a modern-day scientific atheist. It’s easy to deconstruct it from a lot of directions – e.g. Dawkins’s point that around 90-95% of National Academy of Science members, professors and PhDs in natural sciences are atheists, but around 98% of inmates in American prisons are religious. Or by experimental evidence like the Murray-Hill riot, where just 16 hours of police striking in a rather religious area resulted in immediate large-scale looting and a crime explosion. Or by Russian practice, where in atheist late USSR with its boring “civilian ethics” lessons in highschool it was near-perfectly safe to let grade school level children wander around all day, even across a 5 million+ city (I went to school by myself across half the city starting from age 6). But Mencken probably summed it up most succinctly – “People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police.” — H L Mencken

What I am trying to say is that religion – no matter which one – is not the end-all, be-all. And YOLO is not the only alternative. There are better ones. They just got forgotten and swept out of public view in contemporary Western (and Russian) society (with rare exceptions such as China, where natural science is still very prestigious and scientific atheism is very widespread – with unsurprisingly positive results for the country). And IMO this, if not US exceptionalism and warmongering (again, that’s a “God with us” Christian country for you – compare with aggressive invasion wars by atheist China, Vietnam, or say Denmark?), is the major longterm danger – that the rapid degradation of scientific understanding and its replacement by archaic religion or YOLO will ultimately lead to a decline of humanity (a lot of potential scientific-technical discoveries nonwithstanding). We often joke that “Idiocracy” might be our common future, even if we manage to avoid a postapocalyptic “Terminator”/”Mad Max” scenario.

jpalmtoptiger, ust a quick reply (you’ve laid out a very well-thought out argument, and I am not trying to dismiss it or genuinely counter it):

To your comment, “Religions have a thousand-year history of causing wars, bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, genocide.” The Saker is partly pointing out that this connects to the fact that religious folk had tons of power. What happens as the scientists acquire similar power? Eugenics, GMO’s, vaccines?? Lots of bloodshed and genocide via scientific doctrine as well. It suggests a larger issue – that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, maybe? I don’t know the exact answer.

Martin, your comment, “Maybe there is some outer side of the universe (aliens?) But what does that have to do with the Bible?” — Seek and ye shall find, my brother. :-) I’m teasing, please don’t get offended. But the path of the seeker begins at exactly that inner place – that is the path to Truth, which is uniquely experienced by each one of us. That’s what I wanted to say.

I’m surprised to hear it from _you_ like this.
Certainly what you say is not untrue.

But is reviving religion the best (or _any_) solution?
I had the grand luck to grow up at a time and in a country when/where humanity reached the (probably all-time) peak of its development. What more can I want?

Since then we have moved on some 200 years technically (digital revolution) but backwards about 1500 years (society/religion).

Lenin ism/Stalinism was the highest form of society ever achieved.
It certainly still had flaws, but we had been confident time would correct them.
What instead happened was complete destruction.
And that’s our destiny. In that sense I understand that it helps to deal with the pain to believe in a saviour.

I think there’s a world of difference. Religious people are typically (if not always) just outright ignorant about complex questions (because being deeply knowledgeable about natural science almost always results in atheism, as laid out above) and very often don’t fully understand or realize the consequences of their actions. and the world we live in is, usually, somewhat complex. thus the Inquisition, Crusades, the burning of Bruno, persecution of Galilei, and so on and so forth. it’s all pure ignorance coupled with arrogant self-righteousness.

that is *completely* unthinkable for practically any serious scientist. e.g. people like Einstein, Szilard etc, when developing the atomic bomb, were very very mindful of its immense destructive potential, and highly opposed using it on any civilian targets (see the July 1945 Szilard petition signed by 70 top scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szil%C3%A1rd_petition). yet in “Christian” America, it was not atheist scientists who called the shots – not in 1945, and not now – but rather the ignorant religious masses (who supported dropping the A-bombs on Japanese cities with an 85% majority in a Gallup poll in July 1945) and the callous and amoral politicians and top generals like Truman or Groves. thus the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which to date remain by far the greatest ever 1-day mass murders in human history.

once again, note that the atheist, evil Bolshevik Mordor USSR not just never did anything of the kind, but never even planned anything like that (while “Christian” UK and US had blood-freezingly cruel plans for first-strike nuclear bombing all large Soviet cities with around 20 million civilian casualties planned for from the start – see operations Dropshot, Unthinkable, etc).

I could go on with numerous other examples, but that one is really already enough since it’s the largest and most well-known one. to sum up: natural scientists in general are intelligent, thoughtful and therefore usually fairly careful and cautious people. Hollywood Frankenstein creators and Dr. Strangeloves (a parody of Wernher von Braun) are extremely rare freak exceptions in reality.

various sociological studies confirm that, with atheists being, on average, at least as moral as religious people, and sometimes even more moral (which, again, might have to do with the fact that atheism and high education level have a very strong, near monotonous, correlation). a simple crime rate comparison between atheist Vietnam, Denmark, near-atheist Japan, and 100% religious Mozambique or Guatemala, or near-100% religious US shows the obvious correlation.

regarding your examples.. eugenics – well, it’s a complicated issue. but ultimately it’s definitely a good thing to be able to get rid of genetic diseases and defects (which sometimes result in literally horrible fates for the children who are born with them – when I look at children with progeria, for example, and then I hear some religious fools preach about how we’re all God’s beloved children… I just want to ask them one question: when you look at this child, who with 10 looks like 40, and is doomed to die painfully with 15 – where is your God now?). whether it makes sense to “improve” the genome (e.g., better eyesight, more endurance, longer lifespan, and so on) is yet another question, and one where probably everyone should have a chance to decide. but it’s at least better to have the option to do it than to be entirely helpless before the multitude of genetic diseases and disorders.

GMO – a good deal simpler. genetically modified food is extremely negatively hyped, while in practice it’s usually much healthier than e.g. regular (non-GM) food of the same sort, but with heavy pesticide usage (which is very often the case for e.g. grains or tomatoes). there is so far no known evidence at all for any significant correlation between GM food and any negative health effects not observed in a control group eating regular food (which is btw rather obvious from a geneticist’s or microbiologist’s standpoint). and GM food has been around for over 20 years now. now, again, chlorine or insecticide/pesticide usage is a totally different story (and highly unhealthy in many examples), but GM food is often designed to avoid just that.

vaccines – what’s the problem with them? they make sense in many cases. usually not in developed countries, but in places where e.g. malaria etc occur a lot – very much so.

but anyway, my point is that probably the closest thing humanity ever came to a “scientists-run” society was the mid-to-late USSR. and though yes, that collapsed, with reasons that had really more to do with other things (like the impracticability of communist ideals in the Real World ™, the inefficiency of the late post-Khruschev economic system, the constant pressure from the whole capitalist bloc, political traitors (Gorbachev & co) coming to power and breaking up the country from within, etc), in real life it was probably the most humane and advanced society humanity ever produced. which btw most older Russians will agree with wholeheartedly if you ask them today.

It made me laugh when Captain Picard in Star Trek: First Contact (from 1996) said this line: “We no longer desire to amass riches. We work to better ourselves and the world around us.” That’s an absolutely *classic* scientific communism principle, and the central theme of all early Strugatzky books from the 1960s like the abovementioned ones.

It’s just too bad that now society worldwide has regressed back into a state where a line like that seems more like totally utopic sci-fi than anything else.

Thank you, palmtoptiger.
While my English is not that good and I hammered my instant shock-fueled outburst this morning (after a sleepless worknight) in a hurry and full of spelling errors, you wrote up better than I could have what I should have had from the outset on. Brilliant.

One correction: VACCINES
You are speaking of classical vaccines as invented by Robert Koch and others.
If they work or not – maybe (often statistics about demographics get interpreted by people who either cannot or don’t want to understand them). Mass-vaccination was only a single of many factors that have led to longer life expectencies and decresing child mortality in “developed” nations. There were many other factors that also contributed heavily to improvements.
It’s beyond my own expertise if classical vaccines (as used in the Eastern Block) work, maybe a quite a bit.
But tha’s not the point.

You probably heard some rumors about {A} HIV/Aids (accidentally leaked, intentionally unleashed or in fact by itself harmless, only the “medication” kills the Aids patients / search for Dr. Gallo) and {B} mass vaccinations as funded by the Melinda_and_Bill_Gates_Foundation. Also maybe you heard Jakob_Zuma’s speeches about the matter or maybe you noticed that India sued big pharma for providing toxic deadly vaccines tio children.

I know that it is hard to believe – but many of the 0.01% want to get rid of us all. They even publicly offer lectures at USA universities where they demand that the world population needs to be “reduced” to less than 0.5 Billions (from 8 Billions).

You can spend weeks on mainstream Pharma lies.
It appears to be quite true that for example Cancer could be healed in many cases, if not prevented by a hugely powerful and influential Pharma mafia.

Death means big bucks to their share holders.
This is in fact truely deadly “Science”.
But it is not and never has been the science of the Soviet Union (anyway never intentionally).
Of course there were devastating nuclear accidents and decades long plutonium pollution. But it was an unwanted side-effect, rather than a fully intentional highest priority “policy” goal.

Do not forget: Those running the West thankfully took Dr.Mengele’s cruel barbaric child-murdering “results” and wasted no time to continue the program on Blacks while they probably also offered most of the original SS staff new jobs and sometimes also new identities in America.

Thanks for the replies, palmtoptiger and Martin from S.E.B. All arguments aside, I do admire the accomplishments of the Soviet system as you describe them, even though I haven’t been touched by them personally like you two.

Personally, I am hopelessly religious. :-) I love religion, and it has inspired and affected me with as much intensity as the Soviet scientific communist principles have both of you. What to do. I don’t know. :-)

But we all should definitely watch for corruption and abuse of power by authorities, whether religious or scientific ones. These exist in both places.

sounds fair, I respect that (trying hard at least …)
I guess it really depends on where one has been raised.
Childhood and your family – this is it what defines your life-long “glasses”.

That’s why the modern generation – on the other hand – cannot have much of a future.
During our times we would still go out into nature and get expalined the names of the individual plants, animals, minerals.

I regret the new generation for not even knowing what they are missing.

But back to the topic, if religion helps you to find your peace of mind, that’s fine.
I grew up with “my” ideology and you defend yours, I defend mine. Because apparently we cannot get out of our skin and support what we think is right and best.

Then again, I can explain why I support communism.
There are zillions of good rational reasons for it, but human beings seem to find it more exciting to believe in unexplainable myths, maybe that’s it.

Also it is certainly a relieving feeling to have some invisible magic wonderforce.
I plead guilty that I also sometimes “pray” (not following any religion) for something good noble to happen. We all are only tiny human beings and our lifetime is shorter than a 1/1000th of a second, compared to everything around us.

It is very complicated for our psyche to deal with our own powerlessness, endianness and microscopic size.
Our mind has to invent tweaks to circumvent our limitations. One trick is it to claim the universe circles around us …, maybe that’s a good description for this phenomenon. It dates back to the times when we turned from apes into the first humans.

palmtoptiger
Your arguments are standing,having lived through the 60’s-80’s in the same system I had no problem with that.The problems appeared when the religions have capitalized the system.Why should not have a try and make a common way together as in the ancient Egypt,where the priests were also scientists ? of course,that will require some reforms by both sides,but as I see it,that is the only way forward if we want to achieve a better future.That is the real battle in the minds and souls of the people on this planet.Once we achieved a common ground on this level of intelligence,we can have peace and prosperity,if not,well,the war and destruction will continue.

Thanks Master WizOZ,so my alternative is rolling on the floor and laughing.I will do that when the war breaks out in full swing because of the arrogance of those who think they know everything but they know nothing.The surprise when Jesus comes in His Glory will be enormous.

Hopefully science and technology will allow us to reach the end of the century. It is amazing how blind people can be or how the minds are indoctrinated. Science and technology have brought the world on the brink of collapse. Living species are decimated at an unprecedented fashion the whole ecological condition of the planet is disastrous. On top of that science is nothing but a long line of falshoods. See ” The Black Venus” where the cream of scientists pronounce the most idiotic nonsense. Even not so long ago we had the code of codes the central dogma dna rna protein !! Show me your genes and I tell you who you are !! 90% of the dna was junk dna had no meaning nor funtion. Then it appeared that we produce 100.000 proteins but we have only 30.000 genes ! The code of codes came crushing down. Ralph W.F. Hardy, president of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council and formerly director of life sciences at DuPont, said this in his Senate testimony, : “DNA (top management molecules) directs RNA formation (middle management molecules) directs protein formation (worker molecules).” After all, in times of a triumphant capitalism, it should not be surprising that Life itself be a capitalist enterprise. Some time later we were told about genetic networks and recombinant dna. There is no more junk. Sometimes it does this function a little later it does another according one to the whims of the scientists. Then we learned about the fluid genome and feedback systems and finally with the work of Bruce Lipton sorry but it is in the environment. ( The Biology of Belief ) Well science looks like the prats of a small child except that they are dangerous prats. Hugo De Vries said already in 1907,” in agriculture it is economics that influence or even determine what is “scientifically true”. Western science and technology as practised is a capitalist enterprise with very little search for truth. It has downgraded humanity into cynical pathological amorphous mass of consumers. Science without consciousness is ruine for the soul. ( Pascal)

Hi James,
Interesting that you bring up these individuals, both who have contributed greatly to my spiritual unfolding. Have you also read the works of Valentine Tomberg? Tomberg was from Estonia. He was able to synthesize Steiner, the Ancient Mysteries and the Church in his master work “Meditations on the Tarot.
Cheers,
K

Where was your God (in reality the Sun) on May2nd 2014 Odessa? (add ten million similar examples here)
Where was your God when inncoent children are being starved to death on a daily basism (such as in Africa)?

The entire globe descends into chaos due to “myyyyyy religion is the onnnnllyyyyyy true one”, and what’s your solution? MOAR religion??

I sometimes thought you are a gifted analyst …
If there is a God, then be sure he thinks very badly about all those fake human-made “religions” aka sects like Christianity, Judeaism or Islam.

I really cannot believe my eyes watching your blog today.
Well, as I said, humanity learns nothing, is doomed. Be it with nuclear powerplants, wars or in tjhis case so called “religions”.

You often criticize western MSM sheeple for believing fairy tales without ever asking for proof.
But then in the next move you post such blog articles.

Is it only me (here)?
Life after death and the 72 girls only comes to real Stalin fans who have been at least one on Red Square visiting Lenin carrying a large Icone(e) with Lenin, Stalin and hammer/sichel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

omg

p.s. I myself was already almost dead.
Maybe there is some outer side of the universe (aliens?)
But what does it have to do with the Bible?

I also celebrate Eastern and X-Mas, but only because it is part of overall culture (I don’t mean consumerism, one has to boycott that).
You are wrong that the current lack of culture is a result of too little religion. The truth is, it is the other way around.
For real science and culture go back 50 years to eastern Europe (the bare statistics are my witness).
.

Other than the case that i have not seen any news that reported those fires in a single article- only one.
War that the Empire is waging against God and his creation is predictably, waged on a material basis. Best they can get is hopelessness, in the spiritual realm. Which is terrible by itself but not the effect they aimed for – fear and submission.
What they will get is consolidation and determination instead.

““Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” (Ian Fleming, Goldfinger)

“Hitler bombed Serbia on Easter 1941. Germans wrote “Frohe Ostern” (”Happy Easter”) on the bombs they dropped on Serbian women and children.”

“The American and British air force bombed Belgrade on Sunday April 16, 1944, during Christian Serb holiday of Easter. The bombing was performed in a fashion more savage than Hitler did it three years earlier on Sunday, April 6, 1941… One unexploded bomb had a written ‘Happy Easter’ on the casing, which amazed citizens of Belgrade.”

The Independent, March 26, 1999
“The Harrier Hawks, which are housed in huge white tent-hangars, carry 1,000lb bombs covered with graffiti, some of which was less than friendly: “Happy Easter” and “Hope you like it!”

Metropolitan Archbishop PAVLOS Of the Greek Orthodox Old Calendar Church of America, in a letter dated April 1, 1999:
“I must tell you, Mr. Clinton, I was deeply saddened when I heard reports that NATO forces have written “Happy Easter” on some of the bombs dropped over Yugoslavia.”

Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, March 24, 2002:
“It is interesting to note that the Clinton administration in the winter of 1998-1999 stopped its brief bombing campaign on Iraq due to the period of Ramadan on the Islamic calendar. However, both English and American warplanes continued to bomb the Serbian Christians throughout the Christian Holy Week and especially on Easter Sunday of the Orthodox Christian calendar. Some of the bombs that were dropped by English pilots had the message painted on them, “Happy Easter.”

The “one in Russia (Putin’s favorite)” is the Monastery of the Transfiguration of Valaam, which according to tradition is the oldest one in Russia, founded by the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called himself, a spiritual center of the greatest magnitude.

We may see soon an interdiction of lighting candles in the Orthodox Churches.

(May the Lord bless you Saker.
I must say that they are conclusions I have come too, but much better told by you.
The important thing now (more than ever) are the Christian Communities.) Translation,MOD.

Saker, I agree with much of your article; and understand your convictions and applaud your testimony, “Hard speech” to some. I know it comes from a heart of love for your Lord, and love for others.

Adam and Eve displayed the characteristic of #1 type of Christian. The following is a very brief statement about our nature in general when it comes to God: “We want what God can provide… But we don’t want God.”

As a result of this generational lack of love, God has allowed us to reap the rewards of our choices. This has been done in hope that we will come to our senses, inspect ourselves, and the results of leaving our loving Creator, and, as many prodigals have done, come to a place of humility before Him, and be His child once again… The idea that we can make it on our own if we only can replicate what God can do, is a delusion that many follow today. God created us to commune with Him/love Him; as we resist that part of our being we harm ourselves and others. If we persist in shunning His love, we go mad…

I thinks it’s obvious that the world has gone mad.

Please allow me to add Three Rules for Living from The Lord’s Prayer that God used to reclaim my life from an early grave:
1. Confess all sins to God daily.
2. Surrender your will to God daily.
3. Forgive others and yourself daily.
Never stop confessing… When you can’t do rule 2 or 3, go to rule 1 and confess it.
Pray for God’s mercy on yourself and all those you see around you… all the time. “His mercy endures forever.”
Finally: Be patient with God, and yourself… and others.

Practicing the above will not make you perfect; but it will make you humble, and I believe God will never forsake a humble heart.

May the grace, mercy, and peace of our dear Lord Jesus be richly poured upon you and all those you cherish. jdh

Truth is the essence of all things spiritual!
Thank you for this timely and relevant article
No positive change can happen in the human condition without a Grounding in the Source of life,our Spiritual essence!
All eternal Principles such as Truth, love, fairness and Compassion arise from our Spirit not intellect.

“God created man in His image and man returned Him the favour“….this has to be one of the most insightful quotes I’ve ever read on ‘religion’.

Traditional Catholic and Orthodox Christian rites retain a strong medieval mystical aura which, though on the surface might be deemed slightly at odds with the gospel or historical Jesus, a man who after all seemed for the most part something of a social outcast, happily surrounding himself with all the ‘wrong types’; nonetheless these ‘solemn’ meditative rites avoid the awful ‘Chumminess with God’ that is the typical dynamic of Christian evangelical fundamentalism.

The traditional rites (in my opinion) inspire a deeper kind of song in the human heart, one that avoids manipulating emotions and reaches deep inside the mind.

Musicians and Artists are inspired by the mystical core of the ancient religions. A good example from recent times is the Estonian composer Arvo Part’s beautiful setting of the Beatitudes. Art and Music can offer a powerful conduit to the core meaning at the heart of Gospel texts. In this way they can offer greater insight than the spoken word and are even capable of dissolving a few theological knots.

Unlike the Russian Orthodox Church where traditional practice has been carefully preserved, the Catholic Church when choosing to dispense with the solemn Tridentine Rite in the 60s, inadvertently created a new pressure for its priests to as it were ‘perform’ the Mass, to give it their own personal stamp. In my opinion, this has had the effect of greatly demystified the liturgy. The transition began to a new happier-clappier vernacular mode which also greatly reduced the space for quality music. The enormous canon of great music, especially the medieval Gregorian Chant and those vast libraries of progressively more complex and sublime choral polyphony ( this music being fundamental building block of all subsequent Western music) has effectively been discarded and can be heard properly performed today only in select cathedrals and monasteries worldwide.

There is something careless and tragic about all this and apart from the false chumminess you mention on display between the church leaders, it doesn’t augur well for the honesty of the Western church’s supposed desire for universal church unity, that it remains stubborn about those theological niceties which divide, while at the same time carelessly neglecting powerful vehicles of spiritual value within its own tradition, which could offer more consonance and integration with the mind of the Orthodox Church.

Re: a strong medieval mystical aura which, though on the surface might be deemed slightly at odds with the gospel or historical Jesus, a man who after all seemed for the most part something of a social outcast, happily surrounding himself with all the ‘wrong types’

Nonsense! What do you think is the profound root of the “mystical aura” in question? How can what is deepest and most authentic in Christianity be “at odds” with its Founder? The most evident and important aspect of Christ is His spiritual inwardness. If people see chiefly the “social outcast” in Christ, that is owing their false mental conditioning. The Church Fathers were all contemplatives. St. Francis, was first and foremost a contemplative saint, and the same holds true for all the saints and sages of both Churches, East and West. Christ was an “outcast” in relation to the Pharisees, and it is unintelligent to characterize Christ as one who “happily” surrounded himself…etc. It just shows how impoverished and falsified our imagination has become, and how widespread is the ignorance of the real historical and social conditions of the time, which were not those of our highly artificial commercial and media driven culture.

“Remember that nationalism is really a 19th century West European invention…”
“Do you know the difference between a Serb, a Croat and a “Bosniac” (i.e, a Muslim from Bosnia)? ”

Living in the USA, when I think of ‘nation’ I think of race. The racial differences in empires are sharp.
The competition fierce. Largely by design, ‘divide and conquer’ and all that. Partly unintended consequence. While I recognize we are all children of the same God, I understand we are also fallen creatures. Not to excuse war and atrocity, but to face a reality on the ground. I support mutual respect and self-determination. I am very optimistic that ‘deals’ can be made and peace be obtained in that spirit.

Friction between ‘nations’ is racial in nature, and all races have always sought to grow and prosper at the expense of others. Islam in Spain and ‘Lebensraum’ for examples. Oftentimes, as you point out, false religion has served to justify wars of expansion, as today with false Islamic teaching, (Erdogan, Saudis, ISIL…).

Quit blaming west Europeans and Anglo-Saxons for all ills. Your bias is showing.

The presumption in the behavior of many ostensible Christians that Christianity, or Faith, is not objective but rather subjective, is a natural consequence of the concept of Private Judgment which dramatically arose in the 16th century with the advent of Protestantism. Whereas, Christianity has always held the rule of faith means something extrinsic to faith, something which serves as a standard for evaluating faith. Since Christianity teaches that faith is an assent to Divine Truth revealed by Divine Authority (God), the only, the ultimate rule of faith is the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. However, our Faith is contained in both writings and unwritten traditions, which cannot interpret themselves (books do not interpret themselves. Therefore, the rule Christians use must be Animate (living). Protestants, rejecting the magisterium, the leadership of the Roman Catholic, therefore had to look for another source of ultimate judgment. Some, as in the Westminster Confession, reasoned that Books of the Old and New Testament are inspired by God, therefore, this inspiration is the rule of faith, which works in the inner workings of the Holy Spirit witnessed in our “hearts” (i.e, in the individual). In other words, the principle of individual, private judgment is being declared as the rule of faith. This proposition submits that the Holy Spirit guides the individual to a truthful interpretation of the Faith. There is the individual believer with his bible. However, since the Bible nowhere testifies to the inspiration of any specific book, and testifying to the inward working of the Holy Spirit is purely subjective, specific to each and every individual, such a test is neither decisive nor universal regarding the truthfulness of doctrine. For example, Luther pronounced St. James’s epistle to be an “epistle of straw”

In contrast to the above proposition, Christ instructed His disciples to teach, not to write, but to teach. The Church is presented as a living, eternal society, composed of both the teachers and the taught (lay). It is an objective reality, not simply a spiritual construct. Christ dwells in this Church, is the Head, and promises that the Holy Spirit should abide in it (John, xi v, 26). Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of the truth, in Timothy Mark , Romans and Acts. So it was also with the Early Church Fathers, e.g., Ignatius and Irenaeus.

Secular domination of the Church , while a problem in certain regions for Roman Catholicism has been a fundamental weakness of Eastern Orthodoxy, from the get-go. After the Western Roman Empire collapsed in A.D. 476, the eastern half continued as the Byzantine Empire, centered in Constantinople. The patriarch of Constantinople exercised jurisdiction over the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and served under the emperor. The Byzantine emperor had tremendous influence in church affairs. Some even claimed to be equal in authority to the twelve apostles, and to have the power to appoint the patriarch of Constantinople. The patriarch often attempted to bolster his position in the universal Church to give himself more leverage in dealing with the emperor, and this usually brought him into conflict with Rome.

During conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff defended the Faith against heresies and secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398. Ironically, in the Church’s eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (which sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the Pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality. Whereas, the patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors.

The Norman conquest of southern Italy helped touch off the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christendom. When the Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there to adopt the Latin-Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of using leavened bread. In response, the Patriarch (Cerularius) ordered all of the Latin-Rite communities in Constantinople to conform to the Eastern practice of using leavened bread. The Latins refused, so the patriarch closed their churches and sent a hostile letter to Pope Leo IX.

There was no single event that marked the schism, but rather periods of being in and out of schism during a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. The East’s final break with Rome did not come until the 1450s.

I do want to mention before closing, the part of your Post which refers to the First Crusade. Pope Urban called the First Crusade in response to the request of the Byzantine emperor, who asked the Holy Father to send warriors to Byzantium to help fight the Seljuk Turks who were overrunning the province of Anatolia (modern day Turkey). In November 1095, Urban called upon western Christendom to liberate the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and stop the persecution of Holy Land Christians and pilgrims.

Great post. Nice use of facts at your disposal. I find the protestant emphasis on sola scriptura combined with subjective interpretation most annoying. If all interpretation is subjective, how can there be heresies?

It is true that the Roman Church is getting to be universally hated and that the Orthodox Church is more cool, but could it be that the Roman Church is more under attack, both internally and externally? I, for one, would hate to give up the heritage left by the saints and martyrs as well as devotions such as the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart. There are many trying to drag the Church through the mud these days, of a piece with the way they spat on Christ during his passion.

One can say what he pleases except that Manita muscaria is Christ. As for laws of the apostles what a load of old cobblers.!

Did the thief on the cross need one line of these apostolic back the.? What is this veneration lunacy.? Is it not written: therefore oh man you are without excuse because the whole of creation testifies the the truth I Am.

Most definitely you should, and the sooner the better. The combox is often really unwieldy, so one has to wade through a lot of ineptness to find the occasional well-informed, intelligent comment that adds value to the post. After all, stupidity thy name is legion. We live in a time in which every opinionated and ignorant fool feels free to vent because he is under the illusion that everyone is equal and that it is his “right” to clog the conversation with his “contribution.” By definition, the majority is always mediocre. In the combox as elsewhere Pareto’s rule holds; and in fact, its more like only 20% of the 20% is even worth scanning, let alone giving it a serious read. People today resent the idea that qualitative standards should be applied to them. They are brainwashed in accordance with a culture that is quantitatively oriented. So to please them, ignore the middle part of the bell curve!

I enthusiastically agree that you should, but as regards Oodnadatta’s comment, it is not merely stupid but manifests an individual who is likely somewhat unhinged. Definitely, please remove the wingnuts, but also please remove the merely unintelligent, ignorant, and opinionated. These really clog the combox and greatly lower the overall quality of the comments and the experience of the post. Way too much hot air.

Religion’s use is only as a form of folklore. Its nice to keep some of the rituals, celebrations and festivals because they are part of traditional culture. For the purpose of religious celebrations like easter, people / families / communities are brought together.

But no person of sound mind should believe what is written in the religious texts.

Right, George is correct. Jesus, Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu, the Buddha, Plato, Plotinus, Rumi, all the Church Father, St. Francis, Saint Bernard, St. Thomas, and a galaxy of other great saints and sages, not to mention a practically unanimous humanity are all wrong, and were not intelligent enough to realize they were dupes of an illusion. If the best of humanity is this stupid regarding what is fundamental in reality there is no such thing as human intelligence.

“When the inferior man hears talk about Tao, he only laughs at it; it would not be Tao if he did not laugh at it … the self-evidence of Tao is taken for a darkness.”
———————————–

George’s post is the kind of blatant stupidity that I wish the mods would eliminate. It’s depressing to have to view the extent of confident human stupidity in our day.

Secondly, I do not think you should wast your and your mods energy on blocking the trolls, who’s obvious intention is irritate you.
You should believe that most of your readers, including yours truly cannot see though this “fog of …”. Often reading some the posts I get a notion, that some of the “entrants” sit across the desk from each other.

Thirdly, you have to expect some rough seas when you write an article regarding Christianity, which has been under constant “barrage” for two thousand years.

Fourthly, this is an answer to the “communists”. I understand what they are saying, but they have to remember that even though Marx claimed Imperialism as last stage of Capitalism before it’s death, and the Communism as I can remember was here “on this planet” as an ultimate social system which was going to last forever. I also realize that the “Socialist, People’s Republics” systems that existed prior to 1992 were not perfect, and they were only a transitional systems on the way to the Communism, but human greed destroyed them instantly and at this moment Communism is nowhere in site.

Finally, I want to add that Christianity gets the blame for all the “humanity’s bad deeds”, but it’s someone else that’s doing the “deeding”.

Knowledge of God is not experience of God, the former is dead, the latter alive. Knowledge of God – no matter how much a person knows, or is an expert on – is spiritually meaningless. In fact, it is far far worse than that, in it give the person the very false idea of being acceptable to God. Too many people have a head knowledge of Christianity, but no spiritual experience through Christ.

In fact, theology is not needed, what is needed is a relationship with Jesus, after all, why did He come to earth if people could enter heaven without Him? This is what many people miss.

Also, as is quite evident now, Christianity is under satanic attack, one to try and destroy it, and two to replace it with the satanic New World Order.

The rc pope wants to take over control of the Orthodox Church in a unified world religion, headed, of course by the pope. This ties in with the satanic NWO. See Revelation 17 which describes the rc church – no other institution fits.

Saker, you should have quoted 2 Corinthians 6:14 instead: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?’

I haven’t read through the article – yet. However, one comment caught my eyes, which is patently false – at least in the context of my nation, Hungarians. “Remember that nationalism is really a 19th century West European invention”.
It may be WEST European. However, In Hungary it goes back to the middle 17th century (likely earlier) when our poet, soldier and warrior Miklos Zrinyi wrote in 1661: “Don’t hurt the Hungarians…” Where he says: “Don’t hurt the Hungarians! The poor Hungarian NATION, has it arrived to the state of…”
original: “Ne bántsd a magyart! Szegény magyar nemzet, annyira jutott-e ügyed…” (magyar nemzet = Hungarian Nation). Another Hungarian poet in the 16th century (Balint Balassi 1554-1594) also SPECIFICALLY refers to the Hungarian NATION in the Nation, nationalist context in his work “A nice Hungarian comedy.”
Nationalism may have come to fore in Germany, Italy, France only in the 19th century. However it was ALIVE and WELL in the 16th., in Hungary.

True,but its important to remember the “context” of the times. He (who was an ethnic South Slav BTW) was speaking of the “Hungarian nation” which was anybody “of the noble class” from the Kingdom of Hungary in those days. The common peoples didn’t count in the thinking of those times. It was the nobility in Hungary (and Poland,etc) who was meant when talked about as the “Hungarian nation”.It was from the 18th-19th Century on, that nationalism began to be used in the term we understand it today (as an “ethnic” term including all those of say, Magyar, Polish,German,etc,etc people in those nations).

As an example here is part of the bio of the Zrinyi/Zrinski family (actually a part of the House of Subic):

” The Zrinski family (Hungarian: Zrínyi ) was a Croatian-Hungarian noble family,influential during the period in history marked by the Ottoman wars in Europe in the Kingdom of Hungary and Croatia and in the later Austro-Hungarian Empire. Notable members of this family were Bans (viceroys) of Croatia, considered national heroes in both Croatia and Hungary, and were patriculary celebrated during the period of romanticism; this movement was called Zrinijada in Croatian.”

“The Zrinski, meaning “those of Zrin”, are a branch of the Šubić family, which arose when king Louis I the Great needed some of the Šubićs’ fortresses for his coming wars against Venice, and the city of Zadar in particular.”

“The Zrinskis were Croats and played a crucial role in the history of the Croatian state, both before their arrival in Zrin and later. On the other hand, they are also identified as hungarus or natio hungarica, which means “somebody from the Kingdom of Hungary”, regardless of the language spoken. They were among many noble families in the Kingdom of Hungary. In the 16th century, Ban Nikola Šubić Zrinski gained dominion over Međimurje County in the northernmost part of Croatia with its capital Čakovec. Because they lived, worked, and intermarried with nobility from all parts of the multiethnic kingdom, it was natural and expected that they should be fluent in four or five languages. It is certain, that Nikola Zrinski spoke at least Croatian, Hungarian, Italian, Turkish and of course Latin. It is of interest that he was the most prominent Hungarian poet in the 17th century, while his brother Peter is known for his poems in Croatian language.”

Thank you for your essay. There is so much historical context that I lack. I am so thankful for these conversations. I happen to be interested in both spiritual practice and philosophy and politics. Which, in the US, makes for a disaster at dinner parties. The rise of militant secularism has made me a pariah in so many social settings. I am so tired of being called weak minded because I prefer a devotional life.
I also appreciate the discussion. As a product of a mixed marriage, (my mother was a Catholic and my father a scientist) I have come to critique the religious/scientific dichotomy as totally false. Spiritual practice and scientific method are ways of exploring the dimensions of mystery, and creating meaning in our world. Both are living processes, imbued with beauty every step of the way.
As relates to the discussion, I found this video clip yesterday which I found both surprising and amusing. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44575.htm
Its just nice for someone to call out these self proclaimed christians who want warfare!
Thanks again

It is interesting to notice the continent of Africa was colonized and plundered by the remnants/descendants of the Christian Roman Empire

Italy Libya, Ethiopia, Tunisia
Spain Morocco (they were to busy in the Americas)
Portugal Mozambique, Angola (too busy in Brazil etc.)
France Algeria, Central African Republic, Senegal and many other places
Belgium Congo Rwanda etc.
Germany Namibia
Holland South South Africa (too busy in Indonesia and some other places like
Dutch Guayana and the ABC Islands Borneo etc.
England Egypt, Sudan, Rodhessia most of Central Africa and eventually all of South
Africa and many many other places around the planet including Africa.

You did not see other powers plundering across the planet… maybe just their close neighbors (Ottoman, Russian , Persian, Chinese and Japanese Empires)…….

Good indication that it continues in its modern forms of colonization with its Descendants.

Wow, What a feast for the mind!
Anecdotally, a most unimportant comment. After reading about it in Gibbon’s “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire” I never thought I would find anywhere a reference to the business of the “Homousios” versus “Homiousios”…. And instead, here it is, along with the other equally amusing issue of ‘filioque.’
However, I think that Israel Shamir, in his comment on the matter, was joking. As the Saker pointed out here and previously, the differences between the Western and the Orthodox interpretations of Christianity went well beyond disputes about the actual nature of the Divinity or the ingredients of religious ceremonies.
As we know, it was a question of whether decisions affecting religion (and therefore life), ought to be the prerogative of one (Pope) or many (Orthodox Councils).
Another issue that has plagued Catholicism is the celibacy of priests. Which makes hypocrisy almost a built-in pre-requisite for the clergy at large. The consequences are more visible today, but reality was equally, if not more, horrifying, especially during the famous (or infamous) papacies of the Renaissance (and other periods as well, by inference).
I would object to classifying Marxism as a negative ideology for reasons too long for a coherent and un-dogmatic explanation.
Marx’ intuition of history as a compendium of economy (class struggle), inseparable from customs (including religion), is responsible for clarity and intellectual honesty in dealing with history, including the present and the future.
That imperialism is the last phase of capitalism is under our eyes.
Furthermore, though usually omitted in canonical related descriptions, Lenin’s idea was to gradually wean the people from the shackles of the patriarchal mode of thought (and philosophy of life).
That the USSR had to halt the process should not be considered a failure, but a noble effort. Of course, even the effort was a threat to the patriarchal powers (papacy at the front) – hence the ‘excommunication’ etc.
Personally, I subscribe to the notion that God is not an analytical proposition (of the type, for example, “All husbands are married” and similar). Generally, I concur with Hamlet that “There are more things, in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophy.” In the circumstances my response to the concept of God is an interrogation mark.
Yet, the notion has inspired magnificent art as an expression of spirituality. This fact alone, but not only, invites respect for the invisible strength that, in million different ways, million different people draw from their metaphysical beliefs.
I dislike the Judaic religion, for its God is racist and particularly vindictive. The effects of this philosophy are visible and at hand.
At Catholic ground level, I find it horrifying that the Pope, in the instance, jokes and cavorts with heads of the maxi-imperialist state, without a mention of wars, kill lists, actual genocides, hybrid wars, torture etc. etc.
In this sense Dostoyevski’s Grand Inquisitor was right in treating Jesus as a heretic. The Inquisitor’s reasoning, if carefully followed, is unimpeachable. Christ delivered freedom to a mankind that had no use for it. Therefore the mental enslavement effected by the Church is a form of freedom for those who cannot handle it. It’s no wonder that Popery and the Exceptional Nation are a kind of mirror image of each other (“Dostoyevskically” speaking).
On the whole, I sympathize more with the humanity of the Socratic Greeks, with their judicious admixture of spirituality and materialism. And if that philosophy could be considered a religion, I would subscribe to it.
But again, thank you Saker, for yet another remarkable essay, that clarifies some matters and that, in general, invites to reflection those who like to do so.

At my last confession, I was reminded that Christ did not accuse nor did he respond but remained silent. I and many like me have been been vexed by the behavior of our leaders and our heretical heterodox brothers and sisters. I am also reminded of the words that relate to the quadragesimal fast after Christ our Lord was hungered in the desert: Man does not live by bread alone; You shall worship God and Him alone shall you serve; and Thou shalt not tempt the Lord your God! Saker you speak the truth. We must repent and we must show the world the Glory of the Church; the Cross! Moreover we must continue to herald the mystery of the ages Christ is Risen!

Very good points, in particular the “und der Mensch schuf Gott nach seinem Bilde” variations, contrasted with centuries of deep reflection and resolutions in different structuring of spirituality and its resulting practice.
As a child, I could not pronounce “Religion”, and said “Regilion” instead. My parents, both studied theologicans, has a lot of fun with the truth in my unreflected mispronounciation.

Hi there, Saker. It’s been a long time that I’ve heard dithyrambic praises for your work, and this piece is also very good.
Albeit, you may have missed out in your vast learnings Paul’s words stating, “everything is permissible, but not everything is profitable” (somewhere in the Colossians’). Indeed, Christian dogma has no cure for petty politics, as the Almighty Himself doesn’t, either. This is all trifle for Him, however many people launched themselves at one another’s throats holding such differential, and always vain, creeds (I’m French so I’ll quote in French my Jerusalem Bible, so as to not make any mistakes – oh, by the way I’m a “Catholic”: “tout est vanité, vanité et poursuite de vent” – somewhere in Sirac/Wisdom). The stuff of nightmares, as reality has shown.
There are astronomical agendas at play here – as always – and politics merely reflect them, however mighty people deem themselves to be (as usual). These agendas don’t much care for philandering, albeit philandering provides the loam with which destiny gets shaped, in these as yet pre-eschatological times.
To be honest with you, and despite the incentive to read all this piece via the Facebook post which led me to it (Nancy Perreault advises all to read you through, in honour of yourself), I didn’t read you all the way through (not because I don’t want to honour you, but I didn’t feel I had to; your evident faith speaks for itself). Of course there’s a good reason for that, and I humbly hope you’ll want to bear with me for a little while: the Paraclete doesn’t care much about the Church’s efforts, as He sees them as… petty politics! I was lucky enough to trafel to Patmos 2 years ago, and to have been a Gregorian during my schooling. Christ never, ever said Christians should kiss the priest’s hand as Orthodoxy makes them do (wtf?), neither did He imply that all Catholics should call priests “Father” – indeed quite the opposite, He said, “You only have one Father, who is in the Heavens”. He meant the future, as He was 2000 years away from its real coming (the Heavens).
Now. “Worry not about tomorrow, be like the birds who eat what there is and fly off to tomorrow” (or something like that, again I’m translating). All will be judged according to the needs and requirements of the lowest common denominator (that notorious cornerstone meant to become the apex-stone). No Temple was ever necessary, all Man’s vanity vanishes before the ultimate simplicity of Creation (David conceded that, but not Solomon!). In a sense, you might say that entropisation of egotism is the common rot, get your head around that one! :)
Of course I’m aware of all the “progress” that’s been made since people decided there was such a thing, but it’s a sorrow to see how division occurs, through some individuals’ cupidity and others’ gullibility, but none of this has to survive. Indeed, the Almighty can start afresh with people in caves. Don’t be so presumptuous.
Deserve the equanimity you seek, and make peace. You are, as all, of this generation; your models have been judged insufficient, and even wrongful. Remember the woman giving a penny to the Temple: her gift will always shine brighter in the Almighty’s heart than all the philandering and sophistication the lowly world can produce… :)
With love, somebody who wishes you good.

” Remember the woman giving a penny to the Temple: her gift will always shine brighter in the Almighty’s heart than all the philandering and sophistication the lowly world can produce… :)”
That’s right,people have a tendency to complicate things,to not see the essence but stubbornly getting wounded by the letters of the bible by interpreting it in many ways and getting stuck on that letter.That leads to the false self-assurance that they know the truth.That woman giving a penny to the Temple – being herself in need – knew the truth,because that truth was in her.

The quotation is from 1 Corinthians 10, 20-24 (s’il ne vous en déplaise):
“20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons (δαιμονίοις) and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of demons. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? 23 All things are lawful (ἔξεστιν) for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.”

You would excuse me if I look a bit pedantic (I hope you won’t consider it either petty, or presumptuous). The birds….

Matthew 6, 26-27:
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air: They do not sow or reap or gather into barns — and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his lifespan?”

Luke 12:24
“Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap; they have no storehouse or barn, yet God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than the birds!”

I can’t find evidence that Jesus ever advocated any style of organized church, and certainly not one dealing with money.

If some organization (registered into a state registry) is collecting money, its probably nothing like Jesus.

After reading Paula Fredrickson’s “From Jesus to Christ”, it seems to me that Christ is a concept of unity, a way to see through the lens of our old religious understandings towards a place where everyone is together–regardless of past experiences or beliefs.

Apart from the part where he says: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

Which may or may not be true …to be honest :/

Just like with so many others parts of the bible I’m convinced are either: redacted, mistranslated, or out-right added-on for the Church’s own nefarious purposes…
At the end of the day; who knows what a guy – two thousand years ago – actually said or didn’t?

For dog’s sake! We can’t even get to the bottom of those ‘9-11 Report’ censored 28 pages yet, and this was when? Just a few years ago?!?

After 2k years, I dread to think about how many times the bible was altered to fit the purposes of the ‘ruling elites’ of that time…
.

I’m with you, third string plug [and Elsi too, btw], and admittedly, purely based on a gut feeling; I’m of the opinion that Jesus, just as Buddha, didn’t want a ‘religion’ to be constructed upon their spiritual teachings.

Jesus if he ever existed was not a christian ( he never went to church or confession etc.) neither was Buddha a Buddhist.
Is 20 centuries of religion not enough ? has it civillized humanity ? looking at the world today the answer is rather negative. Is it not time to go beyond all religion,. live in direct contact with the spiritual realm ?

I have opinion that borders your opinion. Even before the ‘structured’ religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, the pagans had their own religious belief and rituals, more importantly the pagans had ‘spirituality’. So, for spiritual enlightment, peoples don’t need any ‘religion’ – it is very personal quest of every individual, only if he/she walks down the path.

Why and how then, those ‘structured religions’ came into being ? I feel, all of the religious leaders and founders targeted to transform the then existing socio-political and socio-economic around them – so it was, in essence, resistance movement, revolutionary movement to change life of the common peoples in society. And, as soon as the founders died, the entire movement was controlled by the elite followers of the founder, who went on to build ‘religious institution’ that the founder may not originally thought of.

most probably you are right the early christians had the lamb as symbol. Constantin if I remember well introduced the cross and the papacy. To be anointed the tyrant de par dieu. Religion and also agriculture may have something to do with “empire”

@a tiny letter iota: “homousios” versus “homiousios”… Early Christians died because of this “tiny” difference! the point is not to discuss the difference between “same” and “similar” substances, but to contrast the difference in approach to issues of faith between early Christians and modern “official” religious leaders.

I always feel uncomfortable whenever the homousios vs. homiousios argument is brought into the discussion. It immediately evokes the sneering of Edward Gibbon that Christianity was nearly split by the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet. It is known that Gibbon “could never resist sacrificing history to epigram”. Somehow “filioque” or the “azymes controversy” benefit of the same treatment, used more often than not to bring ridicule on the “organized religion”.

But, if the attitude of the early Christians is in so sharp contrast with the ecumenistic approach it is because the controversies were not about a ‘iota’ or a ‘que’, were not about philosophical interpretations, but about the central tenet of Christianity: the divinity of Jesus Christ! The Arians and subsequent heretics were denying it (and seeking to impose their views, violently). Christians were willing to die rather than deny the Christ.

“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John, 4: 2-3)
“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (2 John, 1, 7).
“Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist–denying the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22).

“This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it”:
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
(John 1:14)

The greatest sin for the Church is to deny Christ:
“If any Clergyman, for fear of any human being, whether the latter be a Jew or a Greek or a heretic, should deny the name of Christ, let him be cast out and rejected’, or if he deny the name of clergyman, let him be deposed, and if he repent, let him be accepted as a layman” (Apostolic Canon 62).
Christians were persecuted under the Roman Emperors, not because they refused to sacrifice to the Emperors (Jews were exempted of the sacrifices of the Imperial cult and for a while Christians were assimilated with Jews until Jews denounced them as rebels followers of a subversive cult) but because they refused to deny Christ.

The relations of the Church with the State were defined by Jesus (Give Caesar…)
and: “Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin” (John 19, 10-11).
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18, 36)

” Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans, 13, 1-7).

We shouldn’t be “more Catholic than the Pope” (or Patriarch for that matter).

P.S. Patriarch Germogen did not defy some abstract “worldly powers”, but very concrete attempts to impose Catholicism in Russia

“There will be a religion of the future, a comprehensive and final one, and it will be founded upon the teachings that I am now sending to the earth. These teachings will fulfill all the promises of the Scriptures of my Second Coming, and in no other way will I ever come to mortals of the earth. This religion will be inclusive of all the other religions, so far as the truths that they contain are concerned, with the addition of the greatest of all truths affecting mortals – the New Heart and the transformation of the human soul into the divine by the inflowing of God’s love.”

I have an odd sympathy for The Saker’s point of view. I’m coming from almost exactly the other side of things, and yet . . .
The thing is, I also feel that it is perverse to treat religion as a sort of prosthetic ethical sense, or source of some kind of national validation or something, or otherwise some kind of convenience. I see arguments about religious people being, say, happier (because religion is emotionally comforting or what have you) and it seems rather cheap to me. Surely one should be religious because one believes God is real, not because one is going to gain something from it. And similarly, I am not religious not because I think it uncool or because I don’t want some pastor telling me what to do, and I have no interest in being swayed by any benefits. The issue is, what is the truth? In my opinion, the truth is there are no gods, and no matter how emotionally beneficial it might be I have no interest in embracing a lie. But The Saker and I share the position that the truth is what is at issue.

And I also feel sympathetic to The Saker’s point that, if you are going to sincerely follow a religion, then you cannot make it in your own image–if it says things you disagree with, and you put your own ethical beliefs above what it says, then you are not genuinely following that religion. Mind you, while I’m sympathetic to this position, I do see fundamental difficulties with it, the main one being that all religions I’m aware of have deeply contradictory basic texts. There must, then, be a certain amount of picking and choosing between the opposed things they say. Still, I suppose from a certain perspective what you should be doing is trying to figure out which thing is what the deity really thinks, not which thing is more ethically right. On the third hand, if you start from the assumption that the deity is good, then overall, whenever there is a choice between different opinions that scripture might suggest they have, it might be logical to assume the more ethically good and sound position is more likely to be their true opinion. Which is more or less where I was coming from

Again, I’m coming at this from the opposite perspective. My position is that, even if I were to believe some religion’s story to be true, I might still not follow that religion precisely because I will not follow anyone, even a creator, if I think their prescriptions are ethically wrong. If they put me in Hell for it when I die, so be it–I’m not going to adopt a position because of a threat. Pascal’s Wager is a cheap sellout, in my opinion. But I agree with The Saker that it’s a false position to try to reconcile by inventing my own version of the faith’s ethical positions–one should look at what those positions really are, and if they are unethical the religion should be rejected even if the deity it follows is real. I realize this is far from being a humble position–but it is not a self-serving one.

I went through an atheistic phase for a couple of years in my youth.
I admire atheist materialists who hold high ethics and face oblivion honestly and still find meaning in a Universe of blind mindless chance.

However it is actually LESS rational and MORE SUPERNATURAL to be a materialist than to be a deist and/or believer in spirit/soul.

The reason for this is the mystery of consciousness.

For mindless matter in the form of neural networks to create mind/consciousness requires a leap of faith because there is no clear mechanism for such materialist creationism.

Whereas for consciousness as in a cosmic creator mind to create and form matter there is a more plausible avenue for agency. Quantum physics touches on this.

This argument was used successfully by the Platonsts against the Atomists in Ancient Greece. It is used by David Chalmers, prof of philosophy at the Australian National University who is regarded as a world expert in the philosophy of mind.

Mechanism for mind engagement with brain has been proposed by Roger Penrose (British mathematician) and Stuart Hamerroff (American anaesthiologist). See http://www.quantumconsciousness.org

Also see the massive data re mind beyond brain in my post re near-death experiences near top of this thread.

The so-called rationalist-materialist atheist position is increasingly being exposed as less rational and less in keeping with emerging data.

there is no particular mystery in consciousness. it’s one of the functions of large-scale neural networks with dualistic structure (allowing internal reflection). understanding and reproducing consciousness is already pretty much looming on the horizon of the AI field, as we’ve already fairly successfully reproduced lots of lesser brain functions such as pattern recognition, logic, gyrostabilization, associative memory and so on and so forth.

and, of course, it’s 100% material. nothing “spiritual” or otherworldly in it at all.

Re: There is no particular mystery in consciousness. it’s one of the functions of large-scale neural networks with dualistic structure (allowing internal reflection).large-scale neural networks with dualistic structure (allowing internal reflection.

LOL! Well, this large scale neural network with dualistic structure (conveniently called Stephen) would like to suggest to the properly anonymous large scale neural network with dualistic structure that he (it?) shouldn’t be letting the body containing his (its?) neural network to smoke whatever it is he (it?) is smoking.

While I agree that consciousness is a strange and tricky subject which we do not really understand, and for that matter I think that for all the impressive advances of science, philosophy remains far more important to our attempts at understanding than the status it tends to be accorded these days, I don’t see how religion helps all that much.

Basically, all you end up doing is instead of saying “I don’t know how this works”, you say “I don’t know how this works but that’s OK because I’ll duck the issue by saying God did it”. Even if I believed God existed, it would still be a bit of a dodge. If I don’t, it’s just pathetic; the thought process goes roughly “I can’t handle the idea that there might be anything humans don’t completely understand, so in order not to have to think about things I don’t understand any more, I will assume the existence of something that I otherwise wouldn’t believe in because I’ve defined it as an all-purpose explainer that can banish all my uncertainties.”

The approach with some guts and integrity is to just admit we don’t understand everything, face up to it and commit to the idea of trying to figure more things out. Of course we don’t understand everything, and maybe we can’t, if only because there’s too much everything. Maybe by that same token we can’t control everything. But if we’re not total insecure control freaks, that’s OK.

In the heart of all of this there lies a profound, unimaginable, unbearable and yet simple mystery. The God was crucified… by God. Will always be. No science, no ethics will ever help.

This is the secret of all our misgivings, misdeeds and violence.

And me, I still wonder, I still can’t say I “understand”, “comprehend” or have these words: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.”

Only someone who believes that they are superior would dismiss the interesting things we can learn from investigating older beliefs and more importantly oral traditions and older texts.

I wouldn’t turn my nose up at Ayervedic food or some Acupuncture. I’ve grown up eating Ayurvedic food and I can confirm that it is indeed very tasty, and my brother is running empirical studies as an acupuncturist to increase the funding of accu. here in the uk whilst convincing those too highly educated to respect the evidence and the validity of oral traditions in our modern world of their ignorance. whats left of our civil servants (for now) are happy to pay up (cheaper then drugs for mild pain relief etc.) so who could or would want to argue…?

Equally I wouldn’t waste my time telling those who believe in holy scripture to change their beliefs. That would be: arrogant. And futile.
Such as in the Daesh series written here, such an argument could be seen to be full of polemical gymnastics. Dear reader in my experience you can’t turn someone Deceived by the Second Islam (the Islam of the Deceiver – whatever they call themselves) or the Second Christianity or the Second Judaism or the Second (or first?) Hindu”ism” etc. by such means. Those that I’ve seen have success here including myself have pursued a more humane and dare I say t enlightened and simple path and no im not referring to clerics or scholars though it did seem to help if they’d been exposed to the same kind of scholarly tradition that helped produce the Iman Hosein, or any other enlightened background, in the Imam’s case a tradition that is widespread geographically and numerically (perhaps too far wide for some Arabs to parochially comprehend, I mention no names but humbly suggest that they go do their research- and start back at the Beginning which they claim that they understand the the articles would suggest otherwise) traditions that might not have the funding or polularity in your media of others but Dear Saker you will forever have the gratitude and affection of many many Muslims for helping to inform your readers of these other schools or traditions that still exist etc. that are still with us today. Perhaps by the End they won’t be. There is some scorched evidence to support that understanding. All that we can all do today is to simply to try to follow in the wisdom of the prophets. And to pray!

Tony Benn the British hero said:
“My mother brought me up to believe in the wisdom of the prophets, not the profits.”
Did him no harm. If only he’d taught the same to his son!
The blessed Tony may not have been following the exact faith of the early Christians or even that of the eastern church but he was to my mind most certainly one of those who Imam Imran Hosein refers to when he quotes the passage from the qur’an (helpfully with some context!) on those who say “we are Christians”, though i could easily be wrong. What is reasonable to speculate upon is that the abrahamic scriptures all tell us of the importance of History, what we can learn when we attempt to join the dots. And so I would simply guess that therefore The Last Alliance will be the same as the First. Between the Negus and (some) Muslims (who are being persecuted by….?), Muslims who are, dare I say it, refugees :) Is that why Muslims measure their calendar from the Hijra, the (Second) forced migration? We’ll find out one day.

Like most Tony Benn would’ve laughed long and hard at the kind of polemical gibberish that tries and fails to claim that “christians” are not believers in or at least associated with the faith of the prophet Abraham (I think you know the translation or meaning of the word “Christ” better then I – actually when we think about it to make such a claim is strange behaviour).

“New(Neo)-Labour is a new political party.
I am a member of the Labour Party. I never signed up to join the New Labour Party!” He didn’t blame a manifesto written a hundred years ago in order to fail whilst attempting to explain the idiocy of those in the present.

Indeed the astute observer, say the artists Radiohead as evidenced by their artwork in the mid-nineties caricaturing New Labour fascist leaders, they were able to make that observation from the Beginning. They understood that this Second Labour Party was a Great Deception, that it fanatically followed the extremist faith of Neo-liberal barbarism.

Thank you very much. There is little if any I could disagree with. Just a quick insider’s update on religious revival in Russia.

The official church is booming and boosting, collecting large funds for new churches and cathedrals being built and old ones re-possessed and restored. You can see impressive crowds gathering on major holidays.
But the reality is most Russians distrust the clergy. Judging by proverbs and sayings, it has been like that for centuries. The very word “pop” (priest) has a strong derogatory connotation, and is at present politically correctly replaced by other terms. The people feel an inner and intimate need to communicate with God, and they just have to comply and tolerate the pot-bellied “batyushkas” (fathers) that seem to be an inevitable hurdle on the way to our real Father.

In fact, there are very few people who fanatically follow the Orthodox rites and traditions. Yet to be on the safe side, even atheists bring their babies to the church to be baptized or pay 3000 roubles for a priest to come to their house and read prayers for the dead before the funeral. They pay, and they feel somewhat betrayed that the priest should take the money (quite a big sum for the poor) for rendering this service. Also, expensive cars owned by the priests and their posh residences add to the mistrust. In fact, people seem to clearly separate faith and the clergy, God and those who assumed the role of middlemen between him and the populace.

Saker is right that Orthodoxy nowadays contributes to national self-identity. There is not much spiritual content in it, just another marker of being a Russian.

Yet striving for a connection (Latin: religio) with God is unstoppable. Many people realise that sticking together with Orthodoxy is the most comfortable and hassle-free way of feeling somehow connected.

And I fully subscribe to Saker’s key phrase:

“They religions are inherently a tool of political control.”

My research advisor, born to an Anglican priest in England and living most of his life in Canada, became something of a priest for his small congregation of Anglicans at his old age (he is indeed a sort of Leonardo da Vinci sort of person: professional, demanding, artistic, musical, great father of 5, helpful and utterly optimistic). And I once told him that I, a believer, do not go to church. I don’t want imposters to be middlemen between me and my Father. And how would he feel if his youngest son David starts listening to some strange men who would interpret and relate his own (father’s) words to David. Isn’t it absurd?

Being raised in a Communist country with no Bible in sight, I learnt much of major Christian beliefs (surprise!!!) through anti-religious propaganda brochures and booklets. In order to disclaim, they had to outline the topic to be disclaimed. And however cynically they were describing the Immaculate Conception and other stuff, this was done in plain language and gave a schoolboy a clear view of the main issues. Thus my way to God was through a total rejection under the guidance of the atheist state, and it proved to be a good inoculation pushing to thinking and making my own conclusions. Besides, we had a sizable Tatar population in the neighbourhood, they did not even have a mosque of their own (now they have it built in that town) and they were most amicable and good neighbours, much stricter in family values and morals, supporting their kin and with overall integrity higher than in most non-Muslim residents in the town. I still have very warm relations with my childhood Tatar friends who are now more openly praying to Allah.

It is undeniable that there is a streak of anarchism in the Russian psyche. Of course, the idea that priests should live on air and deliver services gratis is not particular to them. In other communist countries despite the heavy hand of the atheistic Party, people would not leave their children unbaptized and especially their dead unburied and not remembered (panihidas), but had the same idea that popes should not receive money for their work. It certainly was an unconscious reaction due to the years of atheistic and anti-clerical brainwashing of the ‘Soyuz voinstvuyushchikh bezbozhnikov’. In Russia it goes even further back, in the time of the conflict of possessors and non-possessors in early 16th century. Of course, the same conflict was festering in the West, which solved it by looting Churches and Monasteries of their wealth, which was distributed to the Protestant neo-aristocracy. There were, in that ‘conflict’, echoes of the “Judaizer” heresy which was directed at the ‘official’ Church of the ‘possessors’. It is an irony of history that the program of the purist Orthodox “non-possessors” (confiscation of monasteries wealth) was implemented by the Protestant (at heart) German Great Empress.

I liked this article a lot, Saker, just would wish to live nearer from you in order to be able discussing this matter long.

This week I have been without computer and could not see the hyperlinks on my phone, I will see them this weekend.

The other day, watching the nocturnal celebration of Holy Pashka´s Eve in RT, caught my attention that Orthodox cathedrals unfold the same waste of wealth than Catholic. Also call my attention the attitude of some priests who were backstage waiting for the appearance of Patriarch Kyril, who looked more like if they were in a gathering of friends at a bar than in a religious ceremony…..

Russians love to do things ‘di granda’. They love to eat in excess, to drink in excess, they love to worship in excess (they stand for hours at services – the Paschal one lasts about 5-6 hours – they walk hundreds of miles in pilgrimages), but they love also to fast in excess (the Orthodox Fasts extend over half a year, with no meat, fish, eggs, dairy, oil, wine and sex), to repent in excess. All that is so offensive for Western “sensibilities” that it wants to suppress such a bad example (as the Communists tried to do).

And what has to do what you say with what I am saying?
Am I talking about all Russians perhaps?
Have I criticized in any way how the Russians celebrate their Christianity, their Pashka or any other celebration ( be it religious or secular ) or expressed any intention of supressing anything, let alone religion?

What I criticize is specifically the attitude of a priest with a dressed up hairdo and goatee who laughed backstage and looked like a smugly. I thought he sent precisely the wrong image of Russian Christian Orthodoxy from a television broadcast.

What I criticize also is the waste of wealth in Cathedrals, and would extend it to Mosques ( Synagogues I have not seen so many, unfortunately, but from what I could see, they are much more simple and sober ) since I understand religion more in order The Saker understands, as a matter of introspection, ingrowth, humility and simplicity.

Last, you seem to be on a crusade to blame certain groups of people of all evils in the world have been, are and will be, especially Muslims and Communists. Look, I’ll say you the same thing I told Scott one day, I have nothing to do with what they have done or been able to suppress the Russian Communists or Communists from elsewhere. I have not supressed anything and therefore would be desirable you to not generalize so much, nor blame me for what they did some Russians in the past.

And for your information, we, the Basques also celebrate ( do ) all “a lo grande”, you must only note that many Basques are from Bilbao, so ……

You declared yourself a communist interested in an Orthodoxy without popes. It couldn’t have passed through my mind that you might be associated with such (to my mind) unsavory outfits like EHAK (which was “suppressed” recently because it was “instrumental in continuing the illegal action designed by ETA/Ekin/Batasuna”), or to PCE-EPK. To be honest I have a great sympathy for the Basques (mostly for the Gascons, D’Artagnan, of course!) even, perversely (as many would not fail to accuse me) for Ignazio Loiolakoa.
And to continue to be honest, Hispania is the country of Santiago and not of Tariq ibn Ziyad.

Oh wait, will not be that you are Basque, PNV militant and have studied in Deusto University?

I have not declared myself anything except akin to Communist ideas and the model of society proposed by them. It is incredible the distortions about what I have expressed and the gratuitous statements that some here make about me ( intentionally with the aim of disqualifying me as a commentator ).

I have nothing to do with any of those groups you are mentioning.
For your information, not all Basques are terrorists or nationalists, even when being Communists, do not make a mess of this. The same as not all Muslims are fundamentalists, nor all the Communists in the world have been/ are, were/are cut from the same pattern.

Hispania was/is the country of all the Hispanic people, be them Christians, Muslims, Sephardics, or pagans, as well as Russia is the country of all the Russian people independently of their religion or lack of it.

No, I have nothing to do with any of those groups you are mentioning. I have heard about Ignazio at other schools (not Jesuit at all).
Gascons are certainly Basques ‘Occitanized’.
I belong to a generation for whom the association of ‘communism’ and ‘anti-clericalism’ evokes immediately the most nauseating blood stained moments of the ‘Red Terror’, both in Russia and Spain (to the Basques credit, the terror was minimal in Basque Country). Please, if you want to retort, do not give me the “antifa” crapola.
Spain was a Christian country overrun and subjugated by Musulmans. Christians fought back and liberated their country making it Christian again. In my eyes, it is an unspeakable insolence to condemn the native Christians for liberating their country and wanting to live as Christians. Please don’t give me the ‘Inquisition’ crapola, either.

You can continue inventing things till the world end.
I have not mentioned anything about “antifa” or” Inquisition” in any of my posts in this thread.
You twist everything to paroxism, so this is my last word to you, I find you too malicious to my taste.
Clearly you have an agenda here trying to put words in my mouth I have not even mentioned, I can smell your hate towards me directly from here, in the Gulf of Biscay.

Going to church and citing scriptures is not what will make a good Christian of you, but remain loyal to the truth, always, in every act/step of your daily live.
From my point of view, you have too many prejudices towards too many people in the world to enter in the Kingdom of Heavens.

You make yourself bigger than you are. Why would I hate you? On the contrary, it is a token of love, trying to make you see the light. But in the face of unrequited love, I would not do like the student Chrysostom from near the Gulf (I guess you are acquainted with Don Quixote) who took his life because the beautiful Marcela the Shepherdess did turn him down. Besides, I am from nowhere near the Gulf.

Are you the ‘sarten’? If I read it in Italian, I can fancy that it is almost an invitation. Don’t worry, I am over that sort of things, not with teenagers anyway. I might be just disappointed, from the Filocalia to that!

I started reading this with some skepticism, since Pravoslavlje is a delicate subject.
Your words are true.
The only thing that you should have added is the part about speaking out today. Tell this truth like you did, and people will proclaim you crazy. Condescending attitude and insults are their only response.

as someone who was raised a jew,i find that judaism has a lot to offer.each to it,s own as i believe that relegion is merely a form of theatre,roles assigned to priests prophets people and and even saints as designated

it is all good stuff.humans need relegion to survive.survival comes first and relegion in all it,s different forms gives us the will and intent to survive

but lets be clear about one thing….. G-d and relegion are not connected in any way.

All wars are economic in one way or another. It is our inability to confront or come to terms with our savage human nature that forces us to invent religious differences that excuse us when we slaughter each other. God commanded us to kill them and rob all they had. I read about that in the bible, the invention of the great God of Abraham gave us the excuse back in the day. The invention has since morphed into enough different denominations to supply us with all the excuses we will need to stand ourselves for how much longer? God only knows.

I truly feel with you Saker. My grandfather used to tell me a joke about some guy that died and ended up in Hell’s lake of tar and fecal matter, only to find the previously deceased local priest in the same lake and with just his head peaking above the lake’s surface. Upon asking the priest why he is there and not in Heaven, the priest answered that he was lucky to be standing on the bishop’s shoulders…

Seeing how the greatest part of modern-day clergy serves “two Masters” (actually, most of all they serve their own greed and lust for power), I have involuntarily readopted my forefathers’ Bogomil Orthodox faith; i.e. keeping my faith within the Temple resting on my shoulders. I still go to church and attend holy liturgies, but avoid all and any clergy sermons before and after. I pray to Him to show me the Truth and lead me on His path, as it will be Him that will ultimately judge my deeds here in the school of Earth. After all, He said it by Himself: “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

What I can understand is that by avoiding any clergy, you avoid also the ultimate reason of attending liturgy: Holy Communion. People don’t go to Church just to listen to a beautiful opera on religious themes that would lift us our spirits. They go precisely for eating Christ’s flesh and drink Christ’s blood which is the only way to enter the “Kingdom which is not of this world”, the everlasting life. Priests are the descendants of the Apostles who were empowered to transform the ordinary bread into the body of Christ and the ordinary wine into the blood of Christ. “Faith alone cannot save you”. “If ye love me, keep my commandments”, says the Lord:

“And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19)

“47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. (John 6: 47-59).

Bogomils can’t be associated with Orthodoxy without causing severe cognitive dissonance. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy pronounced anathema against “papa” Bogomil and against all the beliefs held by the Bogomils.

So, this is the choice: ‘eat the bread of life’ or what your grandfather joke was about.

Neither can a clergy oriented towards gaining material posessions and secular powers, so the question is whose cog-dis is larger with regards to the underlying motives for our respective deeds.

“Priests are the descendants of the Apostles…”

You mean like the clergy-(s)elected Pope is the ultimate spiritual ruler of the entire world, with the powers to ovverrule Christ’s teachings? Any true Christian can only laugh at that notion. BTW, I never stated I refuse the Holy Communion…

“The Synodikon of Orthodoxy pronounced anathema against “papa” Bogomil and against all the beliefs held by the Bogomils… So, this is the choice: ‘eat the bread of life’ or what your grandfather joke was about.”

The clergy pronounces anathema against all and any threats that take away their self-granted rights to rule over and milk “the herd”. Also, it’s very “Christian” of you to judge my devotion to the One True Faith, although I never asked for your opinion. By your moniker you seem to be an Australian Catholic Crusader, is it so? In that case you can just buy yourself a Papal indulgency (there’s an app for that!) and have all your sins forgiven by the Ultimate spiritual master of the World, regardless of how far you’ve stranded against His commandments. As an Orthodox Christian I refuse the privilege to be cleansed of my sins by other human beings (for a fee), but willfully choose to leave that power onto Him that created me.

Well, I can see that you are immune to ‘cognitive dissonance’. It is more severe, “doublethink” that is. “Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.”
I did not ask for your opinion, you thought that we can’t live without knowing how clever, cool and liberated you are. You are free to make any choice of food you want.

there are no religions on earth: there is only the combat between the old testament against the new one every where; lighting wars and power struggling all over the places. And the old testament is apparently winning sitting in all power places everywhere (except of Russia). How would you explain the world without that fact? : the struggle of evil against good through the history. Deny it and stay just a preppie.
So your analysis is just lacking of spirituality dimension against materialism.
did you remember visible and invisible (in the credo) . just think of the surprise of the US vessel where all electronic broke down in the black sea last year!

(Your reply lack of openness. Your question is it about my understanding of religions or that I have about the nature of God and the relationship we can have with him?
Be more explicit and tell me what you do not understand in what I wrote.
Saying only that the French do not understand anything is a little too elementary!)-MOD

Dear Saker,
I’m a daily reader of your blog who is mostly interested in your contributions, as I learn a lot from them. Thanks for this.
I read your article about christianity with a lot of attention including the earlier ones to which you made links.
I liked a lot of what I read and have been rereading it several times, as it resonates within me.
For starters I fully second the opinions you expressed in your conclusion, as it is in my view nothing less than the « truth » and corresponds completely with my personal experience: (1) the state of religion today is a sad one, and most of what is called “religion” today is nothing of the kind. (2) the modernists controll all the holy places (…) and are more than happy to evict non-official denominations from thier places of worship (3) there is probably not much we, the simple people, can do about that. (4) Christ’s church will always survive, no matter what it has to go trough.
Way back, in my twenties, coming from an authentic very religious environment around me, in contrast to the general environment in my country, I became attracted to the monastic life as a twentier. I decided to enter a benedictine monastery, and share the monastic life with other monks, first as a postulant, then as a novice and three more years as a brother under temporary vows. During that time I was guided by one of the older monks (who was a connaisseur of the writings of St. Agustin of Hyppo, a church father as I assume you know).
The state of religion as described so well by you in your article played later a big role in my final – but difficult – decision to leave this contemplative community, and put the whole idea of monastic life behind me. Explaining this step to my family was difficult, and returning to a ‘normal civil life with its modern infernal rythm was not particularly easy either.
I never lost my faith though and remained faithfull to who I am and to what is important for me.
To finish my comment two final reflections of mine:
1° I read Dostojevsky’s «legend of the grand Inquisitor » in an English translation by Helena Bavatky’s and can only assume / conclude that Dostojevsky himself probably did not really believe in Christ’s miracles, at least not in material sense, whilst St. Augustin of Hyppo manifestly strongly believed in Christ’s miracles and explained why it is important to do so (in his opus « city of God »).
2° Could it be that the Vatican is being aimed at by certain words of chapter 17 of the Book of revelation, namely where it says : : I saw a woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. (in verse 6) and ‘Here is the mind which has wisdom : the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits’ (verse 9) ? Rome is bild on seven hills you know.

It would have been better if the title were “An apophatic view… “.
Judging from a number of comments, many took the “negative” in its ‘positive’ sense. As a critique of the ‘official’ Church (of all Orthodox Churches) as the principal factor in turning away millions of “potential Orthodox” from going to Church (I would call it the “syndrome of the pope in Mercedes”). And a fully deserved critique at that. Many commenters found a confirmation of their anti-Christian biases.

Very well written. I wish all the “negative things” about religion were put down in a so balanced and motivated manner. Deeply informative and clearly aimed to a heartfelt, sincere move. Congratulations, bravo.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.